What’s Wrong With The Argument For Gay Rights, And What’s Right

Cutting Edge Magazine
December 1992
Tom Terry

During the 1993 legislative session, a gay rights bill will probably be introduced to the state legislature. Gay activists have so far been unable to get such legislation passed in New Mexico, but this year could be different. A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals on January 30 of this year recognized the rights of non-adoptive, nonbiological, lesbian mothers. Plus, medical and psychiatric research from earlier this year seems to point to a growing amount of evidence that homosexuality may have a biological influence. If that’s true, and homosexuality is inborn to one degree or another, why shouldn’t homosexuals be afforded legal rights based solely upon their sexual preference?

Addressing the moral and biblical evidence for a moment, we should recognize that it’s not impossible for homosexuality have a biological influence. That doesn’t mean, however, that rights based on sexuality should be granted. The most recent study of identical and fraternal twins, and adoptive brothers, demonstrated those with the theoretically more “alike” genes, tended to be homosexual, if one of the twins was homosexual. If one twin was homosexual, there was a 52 percent chance of the other twin also being homosexual. This is important because identical twins are made up of the same genetic material. Fraternal twins had a 22 percent chance of both being homosexual. What’s obvious here is that not all twins who were homosexual had homosexual siblings. So, the “genetic influence” is not absolute.

The belief now, is that there may be some gene (or as with the recent study of the hypothalamus), a chemical imbalance, that facilitates a greater desire for sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Think of it. A genetic code (or lack thereof) which has the potential to give a person a predisposition towards homosexual lust. Is that biblically possible?

When the Bible refers to homosexuality it does so in three contexts: behavior, choice, and sin. There is nothing in the Bible, however, that forbids the possibility of a genetic influence for a homosexual disposition. Homosexual activists would have us believe that since a genetic code or chemical balance influences their behavior, homosexuality is then natural, and morally acceptable. However, what if it were discovered that there was a genetic influence for pedophilia, or bestiality? Should pedophiles and people who have sex with animals be granted special protection based upon their preferences? Clearly, moral appropriateness is not determined by genetic codes or chemical make-up.

When God made man, He made him without sin. Adam and Eve had no homosexual, self-sexual, violent, or other sinful desires. God did not give them such desires since God calls such things “sin,” and the Bible is clear, God is not the author of sin.

When Adam and Eve rebelled, and fell into sin, all of creation was changed. Their spirits were darkened, their minds made aware of evil, and, their genetic make-up corrupted. The sin nature is not confined to the spirit of man, but his mind and body as well. Deuteronomy 6, Romans 12, and other passages command us to submit our bodies to God along with our hearts and minds (thought processes). Romans 6 is filled with references to the “body of sin.” When Jesus Christ died on the cross He suffered in spirit, being separated from God (Psalm 22). He suffered in mind, and in His body. He was beaten, and His spirit later occupied the regions of Hell. ( I Peter 3:18-20). Man’s corruption is passed down from generation to generation—even the genetic faults. Some diseases are passed genetically, though they can skip generations.

It is possible that at the fall of man a genetic failure was realized, enabling certain sin dispositions in the physical structure of man. We often think that the “Lust of the flesh” refers only to dwelling on sin in the heart. But who’s to say God is not also making reference to physical, genetically influenced sin as well? The sin nature encompasses the whole person—spirit, mind, and body.

If this teaches us anything, it’s that homosexuality is a trap difficult to get out of, though not impossible. Thus the need for the homosexual to exercise something else that God has given to every person—a free will to make choices.

God still calls homosexuality a sin, genetically influenced or not. And He has provided that such influences are not absolute. We can live as animals do: basing life on the desire to fulfill certain appetites. Or we can make the free choice from what we know about God’s Word, and believe about Jesus Christ, not to sin. So, genetically influenced or not, the Bible’s stand on homosexuality is unchanged, and remains as correct, and sure, as it has always been. Our stand should be no different. 

Special legal privileges should not be granted based upon sexuality. Moral, and even legal appropriateness should not be based on biology. Biology offers insight but is not the end-all for determining morality.