Could homosexuality really be biologically based? Drs Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman, and Joseph Nicolosi founded the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Basing their conclusions on the best science, Socarides, Kaufman, and Nicolosi point out that there is a growing body of evidence that homosexuality is not genetic and
“there is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions.”
They also call attention to the fact that “psychotherapists around the world who treat homosexuals report that significant numbers of their clients have experienced “substantial healing” and that “scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality.”
Dr Nicolosi points out that he has examined the entire range of modern scientific literature relating to the alleged biological foundations of homosexuality:
“I myself have reviewed all the literature…and I certainly don’t believe, and I don’t think any scientist really believes, that there is a biological predetermination for sexual orientation. There’s much more evidence for early environmental factors that would set the stage for a person’s sexual orientation.”
No less an authority than Alfred Kinsey himself, as cited by W.B. Pomeroy, his research associate, stated, “I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.”
Dr John Money, professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University, reported:
“No chromosomal differences have been found between homosexual subjects and heterosexual controls” and “on the basis of present knowledge, there is no basis on which to justify a hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals of any degree or type are chromosomally discrepant from heterosexuals.”
In the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that the Bailey/Pillard piece on the lesbian twins appeared, two highly credentialed researchers at New York State Psychiatric Institute concluded: “There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory of sexual orientation.” In fact, leading scientific journals have consistently pointed out “the lack of supporting evidence” for a biological basis for homosexuality— which is hardly surprising since “genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction.”
The fourth edition of the Psychiatric Dictionary observes that how a child is raised is far more important in determining sexuality than genetics: “Many pseudo hermaphrodites and subjects with gonadal agenesis have been reared as females when their chromosomal sex is male (and vice versa); yet in every case the gender role and orientation was consistent with the assigned sex and rearing.” Dr Clifford Allen concluded: “No investigations in any sphere indicate an organic basis for homosexuality, whether physical, chemical, cellular, microscopic or macroscopic.”
Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be entirely genetic, it wouldn’t matter. Human “fallenness” clearly involves genetic defects, and we do not yet (if we ever will) understand the relationship between genes and behaviour. But it is abundantly clear that genes do not force behaviour, regardless of one’s sexuality.
Thousands of gays and straights are celibate. If behaviour were forced, this would be impossible. Thus, to justify the sin of homosexuality genetically means that paedophiles, alcoholics, and serial murderers could all have an equal case for moral approval. If we are going to permit a genetic “fate” for gays, we will have to excuse all sorts of unsavoury actions based on possible or actual genetic disposition.
For more articles on homosexuality, follow the following link: Category: Homosexuality
You’ll find our videos at this link: https://www.youtube.com/@SaintPaulCopticApologetics
