What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage by David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) pp. 180.
“Sacrificing Science” by Chuck Colson, BreakPoint, May 26, 2005.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
When Arnold Schwarzenegger said: “I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman,” it was a blooper. But to many Christians, it wasn’t a blooper. They don’t oppose a gay man’s marrying. They oppose his marrying a man to whom he’s attracted rather than marrying a woman to whom he’s not. This, of course, makes no sense. They pretend that if he became an “ex-gay” he could then marry a woman successfully. And who would not feel anxiety over their daughter’s impending marriage to an “ex-gay”? Who would not feel relieved over her deciding, instead, to marry a “regular guy”? Such is the hypocrisy of meddlers who push an “ex-gay solution” or a faux “heterosexual marriage.” To them, the alternative is a gay person’s life of enforced, but unenforceable, celibacy – not something the meddlers fancy for themselves ala the Golden Rule. The realistic alternative, of course, is marriage for same-sex couples. And for anyone – especially serious Christians – interested in understanding the issues of marriage for same-sex couples, this book by Myers and Scanzoni is heartily recommended.
Both authors are heterosexual evangelical Christians. Myers is one of the nation’s preeminent social psychologists and textbook authors while Scanzoni is a seasoned and popular writer on issues of sex for Christians.
They affirm: “We believe in marriage[and] We believe that opening marriage for gay and lesbian people could actually strengthen the institution for all people.” They candidly see that extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples follows the corrective course of history where other “couples have been barred from marriage for reasons of social class, race, or ethnicity” – and all with Bible proof-texts that would not be cited today.
With a soundly traditional approach, the authors begin by “believing that both the biblical and natural data reveal God’s truth,” so they urge us to “listen to scholars who study Scripture [and] science.” And they then do a very good job at summarizing the best of the extensive research on etiology and intervention in sexual orientation, the deeply rooted human need to belong, and Christian sexual ethics.
The authors offer plenty of data to back up their saying that: “We humans have a fundamental need to belong. We thrive in close, supportive, committed relationships” such as a flourishing marriage.
And again, on sexual orientation, they offer plenty of data to back up their concluding: “Accumulating evidence points to brain differences and prenatal hormonal influences as helping to explain sexual orientation.” Thus: “Sexual orientation is naturally predisposed [and] The key is arousal, not behavior.” They add: “If experience does play a role in programming sexual orientation, it’s just an alternate method for shaping the brain. (Nature and nurture both make deposits in the brain).”
In a chapter called “Changing Sexual Orientation,” Myers and Scanzoni analyze and critique the methods and claims of “reparative therapy” and “ex-gay” ministries. They observe that there are serious problems with anecdotal retrospective testimonials (whether of “ex-gays” or ex-“ex-gays”). Furthermore, so much of what is claimed has to do with mere behavioral change and not orientation change – though it’s orientation change that seems to be, at first, promised and expected. Ever the good and exacting researcher, Myers proposes “the necessary if impractical experiment” for verifying efficacy of “change” efforts. He suggests pre- and post-treatment measurement of genital sexual responses to same- and other-sex erotic stimuli while randomly assigning some volunteers to treatment (e.g. “reparative therapy” or an “ex-gay” program) and assigning the others to a waiting list. That the “change” movement has not participated in such a standard validating procedure is significant.
On biblical research, the authors conclude: “The Bible has very little to say about same-sex sexual expression [and] Nothing is said about homosexual orientation as understood through modern science, nor is anything said about the loving relationship of two same-sex persons who have covenanted to be life-partners.” Sadly, these facts fail to impress those who are, a priori, against gay relationship. So the authors take note of research that shows that “gut feelings feed moral intuitions” – however irrelevantly.
Noting the problems with marriage today, the authors suggest: “Indeed, if implemented as a part of a pro-marriage initiative, inviting gay couples to say ‘I do’ may help reverse the growing tendency for straight couples to say ‘We don’t.’”
In Appendixes on “Why Marriage Matters” and “Attitudes are Changing,” we’re reminded that marriage has benefits in terms of family life, economics, physical health and psychological well-being and that polls indicate an ever-increasing acceptance of gay people – a trajectory that resembles the historical fact that “people of faith have repeatedly debated and then changed their minds regarding marital ethics” – from, e.g., arranged marriage through interracial marriage and remarriage.
Myers knows his science. Colson doesn’t. So Colson smirks at scientific evidence for a biological component in the etiology of sexual orientation. He accuses researchers of “use[ing] biology to justify homosexuality.” Criticizing cognitive scientist Steven Pinker of Harvard of “floundering,” Colson contends: “ Of course – any gene that led men to prefer men as sexual partners would have led to the extinction of its carriers.” But generations of homophobia guaranteed that gay men’s genes got passed on as they tried to pass for heterosexual in socially sanctioned marriages. Colson assumes a false dichotomy between nature and nurture in psychosexuality. He claims that the biological anomalies scientists observe between homosexuals and heterosexuals “are just as likely to be an effect of their sexuality as a cause of it.” But doesn’t sexual desire precede sexual behavior?
Instead of an uninformed hostility, Oswald Chambers said: “One of the severest lessons to learn is to leave the cases we do not understand to God.” Myers and Scanzoni have taken the time and effort to try to understand their oppressed neighbors. So should we all.