Part 5: Homosexuality: Natural or Unnatural?

In this final segment of the series I will seek to drive home the truth of my thesis: the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.  In the previous installment I attempted to substantiate the first part of this thesis: namely, that the teaching about homosexual behavior in Scripture and Tradition is clear and consistent.  I also insisted that it is overwhelmingly negative and, more importantly, that it is by no means irrelevant today. What then of the second part of my main thesis?  In what ways are the liberal grounds for setting aside and overturning this clear and consistent biblical and ecclesiastical tradition completely unjustified because they are based on dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience?

First, as I argued in parts 1-3, the liberal arguments are undermined by the fact that they depend on a highly selective and biased interpretation of modern experience, namely the experience of unrepentant gay men and lesbians, while ignoring the contrary experience of the growing number of ex-gays whom God has miraculously healed.  There is no logical reason why we should pay more attention to the experience of Louie Crew and Gene Robinson than to that of ex-gays like Alan Medinger and Mario Bergner.  That is, at the very least, the argument from experience is based on conflicting evidence.

Secondly, as noted especially in part 1, the purported scientific evidence that is commonly thought to indicate that a homosexual orientation is innate and immutable is actually quite weak.  In fact, the scientific tide seems to be turning.  A few early studies that seemed to point toward a biological origin for a homosexual orientation have not been replicated.  The search for the hypothetical gay gene has failed, as is increasingly admitted by geneticists.  Instead, scientists with differing biases are acknowledging the bewildering complexity of this matter.  It is likely that multiple influences, not all benign, shape our sexual identity and behavior.  That is, the supposed scientific evidence for an innate homosexual orientation is dubious at best.  It is certainly unproven.

Third, there is now irrefutable evidence that, at least for some homosexuals, perhaps most, there is real hope for such profound healing that first their gender identity and then even their orientation itself can be divinely transformed.  I've seen this miracle in the lives of my brother-in-law, Joe Hallett, the founder of Outpost, an ex-gay ministry in Minneapolis, and several friends I know.  Ministries like Desert Stream in Anaheim, California (and the popular Living Waters Course designed by its founder Andy Comiskey) and Redeemed Lives in Wheaton, Illinois (led by Episcopal priest Mario Bergner) have helped hundreds of Christians struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors to overcome them.  Of course, not all are healed, any more than all the people we pray for to be healed of cancer are healed.  But that doesn't mean we should stop praying fervently for their healing.  After all, we don’t conclude that since many cancer patients aren't healed, therefore cancer can't be so bad.

Fourth, there are several undeniable facts that stubbornly stand in the way of the liberal attempt to justify homosexual behavior as simply the natural thing for a certain minority of people.  One is the fact that several identical twin studies have shown that it is rare for both twins to be gay.  Since identical twins share exactly the same genes, if a homosexual orientation were primarily genetic, then we would expect both twins to be the same, either both gay or both straight.  Yet the most recent and most reliable studies show that only 10-15% of the time are both identical twins gay.  This strongly suggests that whatever biological influence there may be, other factors are even more important. 

Another such stubborn fact that liberals overlook is the indisputable fact that the actual incidence of homosexual behavior varies enormously among cultures.  In some cultures, ancient and modern, it is virtually unknown (as for example among the ancient Jews).  In other cultures, ancient and modern, it is much more widespread (as among the ancient Greeks).  Greenberg’s massive cross-cultural study of this matter, The Construction of Homosexuality, provides ample evidence of this highly significant fact.  Once again, this is very difficult to account for if homosexuality were mostly genetic, but much easier to explain if environmental influences outweigh whatever genetic predispositions there may be.

Finally, while the genetic studies may seem forbiddingly complex to scientific amateurs (like myself), the facts of human anatomy are obvious to all.  The plain fact is that the great majority of homosexuals are men, and the primary way they engage in intercourse is by penetrating the anal canal.  Unfortunately for them, anal intercourse is extremely unhealthy, because, unlike the vagina, the anal passageway is thinly lined.  Thus frequent penetration of the anus leads to the extremely high rate of serious infections that afflict gay men.  This is an indisputable medical fact that any doctor who treats a significant number of gay patients can confirm.  The truth is that the medical risks of homosexual behavior are not by any means limited to AIDS and STDs.

If you will pardon a graphic reminder of some crude biological facts, the reality is that the frequent bruises and tears in the anal passage caused by their sexual behavior make gay men highly vulnerable to any germs that invade their bodies through that route.  Of course, given that the purpose of the anal canal is the elimination of waste products from the body, this means constant exposure to toxic elements.  Condoms do little to prevent this bruising and tearing.  This helps explain the disturbingly high mortality rate among gay men, even when AIDS is completely discounted.  The average lifespan for gay men is only 49, a shocking fact that is one of the best-kept secrets of the gay community.   To condone such an extremely unhealthy practice as anal intercourse is not the way to show love to our gay neighbors!  Indeed, it is quite the opposite. All this clearly shows that Paul was right all along.  Homosexual behavior is indeed contrary to nature (para physin, Romans 1:26-27).  Thus, even apart from the clear and consistent condemnation of it in Holy Scripture, the practice of such an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle is extremely imprudent.  It violates the way our human nature is constituted as male and female, and it puts gay people at great risk.  It is not simply that, to put it crudely, the vagina was designed for sex and the anus wasn’t.  Rather, the politically incorrect reality is that men and women were designed to complement each other in many ways, including emotionally as well as physically.  It is no accident that so many relationships among gay people are very short-lived.  This is not primarily because social taboos and laws make it impossible for gay men or lesbians to be married.  Rather, it is what any reasonable person who is well-informed on these matters would expect.  Gay relationships are inherently defective because of their imbalance between the masculine and the feminine dimensions of our common humanity

The fundamental theological problem with same-sex intimacy from a natural law perspective is that it involves the futile attempt to find sexual completion in someone who is sexually the same, rather than a sexual opposite.  In a real sense, psychologically speaking, it is pursuing the fantasy of sexual narcissism (or conversely, an unreasonable fear of ones gender opposite, or aversion to it).  The profound and moving creation stories in Genesis 1-3 emphasize this male-female complementarity very strongly.   It is not good for the Man to be alone.  Therefore, the Creator forms Eve to match Adam, and the well-known conclusion of the story in Genesis 2 establishes an implicit norm for sexual relations:  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Both Jesus and Paul affirmed this without the slightest reservation or qualification.

All this shows that the attempt by liberal revisionists to overthrow the clear and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture and the consensus of the universal Church for 2,000 years is totally unwarranted.  The approval that the Episcopal Church has recently given to the revolutionary notion that homosexual behavior is not sinful after all may be politically correct, but it will never be theologically or morally correct.  It’s not even pastorally correct.  It is not only wrong, it is provably and catastrophically wrong.

Theoretically, of course, both Scripture and Tradition could be wrong.  But before the Church could validly overturn its traditional unconditional reprobation of homosexual behavior, both Scripture and Tradition would have to be proven wrong.  This is such a momentous change, they would have to be proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that is far from being the case   Not only is there reasonable doubt about the correctness of the revisionist position; there is very substantial doubt.  Indeed, the revisionists can’t even claim a preponderance of the evidence.  The liberal case is actually much weaker than most people suppose.

The evidence from reason and experience that the revisionists have so far put forth to overturn Scripture and Tradition is both dubious and conflicting.  The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside in such a cavalier manner. Therefore, the dramatic realignment of Anglicanism is, alas, a tragic necessity.

The Rev. Dr. David A. Handy is in the Diocese of Southern Virginia as a non-parochial priest. His license has not been renewed by Bishop David C. Bane because his theological views are considered too narrow.

END