Here is the circular argument of nature vs. nurture regarding homosexuality.   “If someone is born gay, then God must have made them that way, and if God made them that way, then being gay must be okay.” [Also known as the argument that “God don’t make junk”].   Let’s complete the circle: “People are not born gay, but choose to be gay.  And since they choose it, God is not responsible for their same-sex orientation.”  In my thinking, both positions result in what my logic professor would call either-or fallacies.  I am born gay: therefore God intends me to be this way.  He made me this way, so He must have had a good reason and I am ok.  The other view put simply is that God does not make gay people.  They are influenced by society or life experience.  They are made homosexual by their environment.  God has nothing to do with this.  Are these views false dichotomies? Either you are gay and ok or you are “straight” and were made to be gay.  You must be one or the other. I am not 100% sure.

Dr. Preston Sprinkle* thinks this is not as clear-cut as people would like to think.  He describes both positions as “overstated.”  It is irritating to many people to admit this, but Sprinkle’s view [based on years of reading research on this topic] is that both nature and nurture play a role in cultivating same sex desires.  This muddies the water and that makes grappling with this issue much more difficult. 

He begins his discussion with the American Psychological Association’s position on this topic and they refuse to take a side in this debate: “it’s unlikely that one’s desires are produced solely by any one biological or societal factor.”  Also abuse is often cited as a root cause of sexual orientation confusion but many LGBTQ+ people have never had that experience and many who have experienced abuse have not had same-sex desires.  Some argue that one’s culture can influence what one prefers sexually.  Sprinkle uses an example of American boys who prefer girls with “big boobs and skinny waists.”  However, in other cultures men are attracted to “heavy-set women” and the size of their breasts is irrelevant.  “Our desires and choices are never independent from our cultural influences—influences that are usually unnoticed.  The lines between our choice, our biology and influences from our culture are often blurred and tough to separate completely.”  We can go on and on with this and Sprinkle admits that.  If a person says “I am gay and ok” and it is either nature or nurture, the evidence is thin for either view [Sprinkle describes the evidence as “scientifically naïve”].

Maybe the best way to look at this is what difference does it really make anyhow?  Let’s start with the biological basis for homosexuality [“God made me this way”].  Having a biological predisposition does not really mean that one has to act on it.  If a person is genetically predisposed to alcoholism that does not give them a license to drink to excess.  If a person is genetically predisposed to violent behavior that does not give them a license to attack others.  Sprinkle compares this to man’s sin nature [original sin that all of us are born with].  If homosexuality is biologically based, then is it ok to act on those desires any more than it is ok to act on other biologically based desire?  Some may object to Sprinkle’s view that same-sex behaviors should be labelled “sin” but he feels this is the proper label for the moral choice that is made. The act of pursuing sex with your same gender has to be a part of this argument.  After all, this is the theological piece that is at the root of this issue.  “Christian theology has always taught that our desires are tainted by sin and are terrible instructors of morality.  The fact that people, even Christians, have same sex desires does not change the ethical question: Is it God’s will to act on those desires?” [133].

Dr. Sprinkle furthers his discussion by explaining the foundational concepts of what it means to be “gay.”  He explains same-sex attraction, same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior. 

“Same-sex attraction refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to someone of the same sex and includes other non-sexual relational bonds” [133].  Does it matter if this attraction was produced by nature or nurture?  Are these feelings chosen or created or just felt?  The answer is they are felt, not chosen nor created. 

Same-sex orientation is a “stronger, more fixed attraction.”  A person could feel this attraction but not feel inclined to have sex with another person of their sex.  The last foundational concept is same-sex behavior.  This means acting on one’s same-sex attraction.  Sprinkle writes this includes lustful thoughts [considered sin], and pursuing sex with someone of the same sex. 

What is the point of all this?  Sprinkle is saying that same-sex behavior is a choice and people are supposed to be held responsible for their choices. 

Why define all these foundational concepts?  Because people who are non-affirming lump all people who are gay or lesbian into one hopper.  They are all practicing same sex behavior and therefore they should be condemned.  Sprinkle [who has many “gay” friends] tells of his Christian friend who is attracted to men but has never engaged in sexual behavior.  In fact he believes that same sex behavior is a sin and practices celibacy.  When he “came out” to the elders of his church, he was confronted with being tossed into the “hopper.”  “We can’t approve of your lifestyle” and he replied “Lifestyle?  What lifestyle? My lifestyle is marked by sexual purity.  I have never kissed another person.”  So many non-affirming Christians confuse same sex attraction with same-sex behavior but they are two different things. 

In an earlier post regarding homosexuality and how people react to it, Peter Gomes admits that the stumbling block that gets in the way for most people is “what homosexuals do.”  Non-affirming individuals have a fixation of two people performing “illicit sex”** in their minds and they don’t know that some homosexuals and lesbians do not pursue sex with their own gender.

Why is this so relevant?  No one wants to be misunderstood.  No one wants to be a victim of a stereotype.  No one wants to be charged with something they are not doing.  Sprinkle cites a text a pastor friend of his got from a woman checking out his church.  The text said “Hello, I’m looking for a church that will accept my daughter as a lesbian…If you are that church please let me know, we would love to come to a church where she is not shamed” [135].  How does the pastor respond to this?  Does he/she keep an open mind or does he/she see the word lesbian and automatically assume the daughter is choosing to be involved in same sex behavior?   Would many see that “L” word and fire a text back like “Thank you for your text.  We would love for you to visit our church, but you must know that we do not accept lesbians in our church.”

I know this is such a trite phrase but “what would Jesus do?”  I don’t know.  No one does.  But I suspect that Jesus would look at her as a human rather than as a lesbian, a human who is reaching out to find a church home.  Sprinkle says that inherent in the text is the fact that the mother expects that some churches will shame the daughter, in fact maybe she has already experienced shaming. 

Sprinkle says that realizing the complexity of same-sex individuals is the key to responding properly.  The pastor should know how he/she feels about the nature-nurture issue and the difference between same-sex attraction, same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior.  Then this type of text could possibly be sent:  “Thanks for your text!  I’m very excited that you and your daughter are interested in coming to our church.  Since God accepts all people, even straight people, yes of course, we would accept your daughter.  But I would love to sit down with you and your daughter to hear her story and let her know about our church and the God we worship.  Can I buy you both a coffee?” [137].

*This discussion is based on Chapter 8 of Sprinkle’s book  People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not just an Issue.

** “illicit sex”…I am not sure about how to refer to the sex act between same-gendered people. Illicit sex would be a term that non-affirming people may use to describe that type of sex. My apologies to anyone who would be offended. I know that illicit does sound pejorative.