Fisher inadvertently supports the gay lobby while proclaiming “not born that way”

I read an article by Bryan Fisher on entitled “The Latest in Scientific Research: There is No Gay Gene”.  I applaud him for taking the true stance that ‘gay’ is not how we are born.  I say ‘we’, because I used to be gay.  Well, ok, ‘gay’ is not a thing someone can ‘be’, but I’ll leave that alone for the moment.  That propaganda has been used to sway many in our country to accept homosexuality as a healthy alternative to heterosexuality.  However, there were other arguments in the article that I believe -inadvertently- support the gay community’s belief that regardless of what some preacher says about science, gay must be how they’re born.

In the article, Fisher wrote …”sexual preference in behavior is clearly a choice, a choice which no one is compelled to make.”  I actually disagree that behavior is always a choice (John 8:34), but is “sexual preference” “clearly” a choice?  Aside from those who’ve taken on a false gay or bisexual identity as a rebellion against Biblical culture, those who identify as gay will (correctly) demand respect for the fact that they did not get to chose whether to “feel gay”.  In reality, I’ve learned that our gay “sexual preference” is the result of “needs for love that haven’t been met and emotional wounds that haven’t healed”, to quote Richard Cohen.  As I learned to get my needs for love met in God-honoring ways, and healed my emotional wounds through many years of guided therapy and support groups, my attractions changed.  Knowing they did not make a choice to feel gay, most gays will agree with the underlying presumption that the two possible choices are biological and choice, and believe biological, defeating the author’s stated purpose.

Second, Fisher wrote “If homosexuality is biologically determined, then the rest of us don’t have much choice but to accept it as a sad and unfortunate reality.”  First off, the conclusion that we would accept something as a sad reality doesn’t mean it couldn’t have existed.  In fact, learning to accept our sad reality – and grieve it – leads us to healing, and ultimately ‘change’ (Matthew 5:4).  Richard Cohen summarizes the discovery of modern psychotherapy that the main determinant in whether psychotherapy would be successful is whether the client is able to get in touch with their emotions by saying “you need to be real and feel in order to heal”. – the dude spent years coming up with rhyming ways to make underlying truths memorable.  Denying reality because we wouldn’t like it is merely suppressing truth.  Making an argument against accepting reality is not going to influence anyone working from a rational foundation.

I think Fisher may have conflated “genetically-determined” with “healthy”, and in our fallen world, that is not the case.  The simple counter-example to the argument is the plethora of genetic diseases which are the result of genetic abnormalities, such as sickle-cell anemia.  In steps Texas Governor Rick Perry who says he thinks gay is a genetic abnormality like his predilection for alcoholism.  Rick, buddy, glad you’re overcoming the alcoholism, but please stop spouting off about stuff you don’t understand with your useless conjectures.  There can never be a scientific argument that anything genetic can be healthy or good because science cannot make any statements about what’s healthy, good, or worth-it, those require a statement of purpose and science cannot give us a purpose.  Only Theology can make statements about purpose and therefore make statements about good/healthy/ or worth it.

One argument Fisher makes I know that many are sympathetic to is “homosexual conduct is clearly harmful to human beings in any number of ways, not the least of which is serving as the leading cause of HIV/AIDS, which can leave young men disease-ridden and destined for an early grave. We don’t want that future for anyone.”  But, I’d highly suggest doing research into what men are willing to do for “love”.  Take a look at the death rates of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance.  They’re significantly higher than ‘gays’ with AIDS.  When seeking to love or protect those they love, or defend the rights of others, men regularly make choices which have much higher death rates than AIDS.  I do personally know several men who made their decision to “maximize their heterosexual potential” as a result of a boyfriend or close friend who died from AIDS.  But when they do, they belie that fact that up until it happened to someone close, they were willing to ignore the risks, which were readily knowable, in pursuit of what they believed was love.  It may have been emotional dependency, or codependency, but they’ve been taught that’s what “love” is.

Again, I believe Fisher found and is promoting the correct and true reality that ‘gay’ is not in-born, but unlike me, most people can’t evaluate the merits of a scientific report, and will trust their friends over someone they don’t know.  As an argument, it’s much more powerful to be able to say, “it doesn’t matter if it’s genetic, because even if it’s genetic that doesn’t mean that it’s healthy or good, or that it’s ‘love’.  One needs a theological argument to make statements about what’s healthy and good and worth-it, and my God loves you so much, it was worth-it to Him to lay down His life to save you, just as you are.”  The trouble with Christians (and I’m one), I’ve found, is ever backing up that statement with enough agape and phileo love to actually win over someone who has been neglected, shamed, abandoned, exasperated, or possibly sexually abused, or that they even need to be bothered by it personally.  Please join me in trying to win over the Church to demonstrate the kind of love that ‘gays’ -like me- need to meet their needs for love and support us as we heal our emotional wounds.

Why it doesn’t matter if eroticized same-sex attractions are caused entirely by biology

Science cannot make statements about “healthy” or “good”. You must have theology for that.

Examples of biological conditions which are generally recognized as “unhealthy”:
Sickle-cell anemia: genetic
Cancer: genetic, radiation, bacterial, viral
Alzheimer’s: genetic
Deafness resulting from in utero alcohol: chemical

So, as you can see, there are plenty of examples of conditions, caused entirely by biology, chemistry and physics which we do not regard as healthy. It is not valid to make the statement: “if it is biologically caused, it is healthy,” yet that is what the gay lobby wants us to believe. This has been their strategy for moving forward: use the civil rights movement as a model: to do that they must convince you “gay” is another kind of person, that “sexual orientation” is an immutable aspect of a person, like sex or race, or that they didn’t choose these feelings… The last one I believe, yet it doesn’t imply that their eroticized same-sex attractions are healthy.

So am I saying the causation of SSA doesn’t matter?  No of course not.  I’m saying if you are in a scientific argument with someone who is using a variety of facts against your position, facts you can neither verify or disprove, you don’t have to end up with “my authority says” vs. “your authority says”: you can use a presuppositional argument instead.  Show that in their worldview their argument wouldn’t be valid even if their facts are true using the above evidential critiques.

So what does tell you “healthy”?  Your worldview, your religion, your theology.  The Bible explicitly forbids erotic same-sex activities in numerous passages Old and New Testament.  There have been those who attempt to re-write the Bible to not say things it does, but a rigorous application of proper hermeneutics comes back to the original plain reading of scripture: no, two men are not allowed to have sex.  Even under grace of Christ where “all things are permissible” still “not all things are beneficial”, and now we’re back to this concept of healthy – does something build you up or tear you down?  According to Christianity, erotic same-sex activities tear us down.  According to Christ, the sexes were inherently designed for heterosexual marriage, or as the case is: just “marriage” is inherently heterosexual.  There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage: God never invented it.  He didn’t do it then, and contrary to what some say, homosexual marriage is not a new work of the holy spirit.

The Bible places no conditions on its prohibition of erotic same-sex activities: in that way there are no valid arguments to be made in the Biblical worldview that result is supporting the ‘ok”-ness of erotic-same-sex activities.

So when does causality matter?

Causality matters once you realize you have a problem.  I should stop for a second and explain why is seems odd that I alternately say that causation doesn’t matter but then it does.  God has used a technique called “memoization” to tell us that same-sex erotic activities are not “ok”.  In reality whether anything is good is only one thing: if it follows God’s plan.  Zip zero end of story.  Fortunately, for humans, he has clarified his plans for us: 1) love God with everything you are, and 2) love your neighbor as yourself.  Jesus didn’t give these commands for the first time in the New Testament: these had been the highest laws the whole time.  Jesus further clarifies “all of the law and the prophets hang on these”.  Catch that? everything does relate back to a single goal.  The law gives us lists of ways we can fail to comply with these top two commands.  Computer scientists call this “memoization”, when an answer is very difficult to figure out, once you figure it out, you store it in memory (write a “memo”) so that the next time you need the answer, it’s there waiting for you.  In reality, none of the 10 commandments present any kind of an action in which something other than loving God or loving your neighbor has gone wrong: think of them as a top-ten list of ways to fail God’s top command.  So does the causality of erotic same-sex attractions matter in whether it’s healthy?  of course, but God already gave us the answer, so whatever else you think you’ve come up with, sorry, you’re wrong.

“Hasn’t science proved gay is ‘how you’re born’?”

Actually, science has observed the opposite.  Take identical twins as an example.  They have the same DNA, and were in the womb at the same time.  Whatever affects one before birth generally affects the other.  What affects them after birth, on the other hand, does not happen the same for the other.  If genetics were the determining factor, the identical twin of someone who identifies as ‘gay’ should also identify as ‘gay’ 100% of the time.  The actual number? 11%.  Other studies have seen 9%.  So the next question is why is that rate so high?  After all, only 2-3% of men identify as ‘gay’, so why is the rate higher for twins?  We do believe that increased emotional sensitivity may be a genetically-linked trait, and that increased emotional sensitivity makes it easier for someone to be emotional traumatized, but we don’t believe emotional sensitivity is unhealthy.  In fact we believe just the opposite: many times formerly-SSA men make the best husbands and fathers, because they are much more attuned to the emotional needs of their wives and children, and after learning how to re-parent themselves to help their “inner-child” (the subconscious) heal his emotional wounds, they make great parents.