Thoughts on the 'Born Gay' Argument
Why Condemn What is Natural? The constitutional argument or 'born gay' argument for homosexuality states that same sex attraction is natural to some individuals in that it is genetically determined, not freely chosen. If homosexuality is genetically determined, it cannot be resisted or changed and, therefore, must be morally permissible. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? To condemn it seems as bad as condemning someone for learning to walk.
What is 'Natural' to Us Most of the gay people I know would say that they have been attracted to the same sex for as long as they can remember, just as heterosexuals would say about their sexual preference. In this sense it is natural to them. I will not take issue with this notion.
How the Constitutional Argument is Grounded Generally speaking, there are two ways that the constitutional argument for homosexuality is grounded: first, by pointing up genetic studies related to same-sex attraction; and second, by an appeal to personal experience, that is, the profound subjective sense that one was born gay. This article will focus on the latter, for reasons stated below.
Genetics and neuroscience research has not discovered a gay gene or genes. Most scientists agree that homosexuality is caused by a complex combination of genes, brain chemistry and psychosocial factors. (For a survey of scientific studies on the nature of same sex attraction, see sermon from Feb 7th, 2010).
The Science Doesn't Matter The second--and more important--reason is that even if a genetic cause for homosexuality were identified, this would matter very little to the average gay person. The most important point for gay people defending constitutional homosexuality is their deeply rooted personal sense that they were born gay. Here is how I know the science doesn't matter to them: if science were to eventually disprove that homosexuality is genetically determined, gay people would not feel any less convinced of the rightness of their same-sex attraction. Or say, if science eventually proved that murderers are born murderers in the same way that many gay people believe they are born gay, it is doubtful that gay people would then conclude that murder is morally permissible for those who are born that way.
What Do We Mean by 'Natural'? What the constitutional argument seems to boil down to, then, is that some gay people believe they were born gay because same-sex attraction is natural to them. By "natural" they mean that the desire wasn't coerced, or forced, or acquired only after years of trying, it just sort of developed as naturally as the ability to walk and talk.
"Natural" is difficult to define in relation to sexual orientation, but in this case it seems to mean something like "a development according to natural processes." How we discover whether something is natural to us is another matter, of course. I think it is safe to say that the way most gay people would describe same-sex attraction as natural to them is the same way most heterosexuals would describe it: a deeply felt desire or predilection.
The Shape of the Argument If this is accurate, then the 'born gay' argument seems to be saying this: homosexuality is morally permissible because same-sex attraction is natural, that is, a deeply felt desire or predilection to some people.
There seems to be a flaw in the argument and it is this: the idea that if something is natural, that is, a deeply felt desire or predilection, then it is morally permissible. An argument of this form could be used to show that any predilection or desire that feels natural to someone is morally permissible. On these grounds one could justify as natural the tendency to be selfish, or violent, or to over-indulge in food or drink, or to be lazy, prideful, unloving, or homophobic.
This is obviously a silly argument. All of us have desires and predilections--even deeply felt ones--that should be resisted or even eliminated because they are unhealthy, harmful, or wicked. Then how do we know whether homosexuality is a desire to be encouraged or resisted? The fact that it's a natural desire doesn't seem to be a sufficient factor in evaluating the moral status of same-sex attraction.
An Authority Beyond Ourselves I would argue that this calls for an authority beyond us to help us understand which desires are good and which are bad. The Bible endorses heterosexuality and discourages homosexuality in two ways: 1) The model of the male/female marriage relationship as outlined in the creation account (Genesis 1-3) and supported throughout the Bible; and 2) by specifically forbidding perversions of this model, including adultery, polygamy, incest, lust, homosexuality, etc. (E.g., Leviticus 18; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
Is It Fair? It may be objected that even if the argument above is sound, it doesn't seem fair to gay people.* On the face of it, I would agree. I don't see how it is fair to gay people, either, to have to deny something as basic as their sexual preference if they want to follow God. And I don't claim to have a very satisfying answer to this problem, except that we should look at what we mean by fair and see whether God is to blame.
On a biblical worldview, God created man good and then man sinned (Genesis 3). When man sinned, many of our natural drives turned selfish, wicked, harmful, unhealthy, etc. Further, the fall of man into sin wreaked havoc on the natural order, resulting in birth defects, deformities, diseases, etc. So now people are born with serious maladies, deformities, handicaps; some children contract terminal illnesses and die untimely deaths. Others experience a lifetime of suffering. Some are mentally handicapped or mentally ill.
We come into this world imperfect physically and morally/spiritually. It could be argued that it is not fair that these people suffered such ravages of the natural order. It is not a child's fault that she is born anencephalic. But it is a fact that, distorted as our world now is through sin, some are born with greater challenges, more miserable maladies, more intense moral challenges than others.
It is conceivable then, that the same distorted natural order that produces people who experience chronic pain, or depression, or deformities, or die untimely deaths, or suffer from sexual addiction could produce others with a sex drive counter to God's ideal. As all who want to follow Jesus will have to, by his grace, resist temptation and radically alter certain predilections, some are saddled with greater challenges to overcome.
Can I Change? Some gay people dedicate their lives to Jesus and become straight, with varying degrees of difficulty in making the change. I will not deny the massive life-restructuring that is necessary for some to become straight. But at the same time I will not deny the power of God to change lives. Since we all struggle with weaknesses, this is true for everyone who wants to follow Jesus. Perhaps gay people who want to be straight and follow Jesus will have a harder road than most.
*It appears that our society has come to a point where if one holds that homosexuality is immoral or if one does not support gay marriage--regardless of how compelling his case--he is often considered ignorant, mean, or "homophobic." There is a social tyranny to this issue that is troubling in the extreme. If we were talking about people harming others for their sexual preferences, that would be one thing, but to disagree philosophically and be demeaned for it is quite another.