Chapter 16: Specific Battlefronts: 2. The Gay Phenomena: Introduction

  Return to Series Contents

Part 16:1 Introduction

Historical Perspective

A Starting Point of Respect:

Introductory Definitions

The Difficulty of the Task

The Difficulty of Scripture

Part 16:2 The Vexed Subject of Fixity

An Unusual Resource

The Challenge of Fixity

More on Fixity

Part 16:3 What and Why Gay

Why Gay?

Conclusions about Causes

But Why?

Part 16:4 The Gay Spectrum

Seeking a Broader General Perspective

Relationship Differences

Part 16:5 The Question of Sex

The Sexual Conclusion

A further perspective

Friends or Sexual Partners

Gay & Straight Balance

Preliminary comment:

Despite my request in the opening part of the Introduction to not jump immediately to pages such as this one, there will no doubt be those who do this, but if you do, you may fall to a wrong assessment of these pages that only becomes clear when the series is seen as a whole. If you have jumped straight here, please make no judgments until you go back and read the introductory chapters.

In addition to this comment, I am going to take the unusual step of prefacing the following chapters with a conclusion (that may only make sense once you have read all the pages):

Speaking to the Christian community, may I add a further thought. All of us, we have considered earlier, are part of the ‘Fallen World' and as such we struggle to always get it right. As part of the Christian community we are constantly trying to clarify the vision that Jesus has for his Church and we ‘see' things today we hadn't seen say ten years ago.

It is easy to adopt a harsh judgmental attitude about anyone we feel thinks differently to where have arrived in our thinking, and our beliefs. People do this whatever their perspective, believer or unbeliever, but for those of us who are believers, the example and teaching of Jesus warns us against such judgmentalism.

Now here's the thing, we will see, in respect of the Gay community and indeed the LGB etc community, that a rainbow is perhaps a good way of thinking about them, not only from the varied ways they see themselves, but because we will note, with the help of Douglas Murray, that

•  Some are genuinely certain they were like this from birth. This is who they are.

•  Some are those who have climbed onboard some way through life but who genuinely ‘feel' they are Gay, and there may be a variety of reasons for that, and they may indeed eventually reject their gay stance and return to a ‘straight path'.

•  Others are in it purely for the sex.

Now I think it is legitimate to challenge the third group as we should challenge (as Louise Perry does) all promiscuous sex as being generally harmful (again for a variety of reasons).

Taking the 1st and 2nd groups together, this is what they ‘feel' (and may feel certain about) and there may be a variety of reasons and causes why they think that which, I believe, as a society it is legitimate to consider. But as we will note, such considerations challenge the identity of the individual and in the present cultural climate, that is, without a great deal of care, likely to be unhelpful and stress inducing.

If Douglas Murray is to be believed, and there is no reason to doubt him, it may be that those who we know today as Gay, may come to a point in life when they decide to change, i.e. they make a conscious choice (for the variety of reasons we will see he gives) to live a straight life.

From a pastoral perspective, two particular questions arise:

•  Can we communicate with the Gay person in such a way that they:

•  Can accept different views to their own without rancour or feeling threatened (ours, from a perhaps traditional, biblical view),

•  Are helped to think through their surrounding environment and reasons why they chose this path – without any sense of any need for change in them beyond greater understanding of who they are and why.

•  Can we teach our own community to hold their (possibly) long-held traditional views, while:

•  Not being condemning but lovingly open to those who have chosen the Gay path, and

•  Be lovingly caring to those in that community who are struggling with their beliefs and identity.

Part 16:1 Introduction

Historical Perspective: I think, when we come to face up to the Gay experience of recent years we need to start by trying to get a clear perspective and ensure we are aware of the changes to the Law that have taken place in the last half century in the UK:

1967: The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalizes sex between two men over 21 and ‘in private'

(Changed in 1994 to 18 and in 2000 to 16)

2003: Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations  make it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gay etc. in the workplace.

2004: The Civil Partnership Act 2004  permits civil partnership in the United Kingdom. The Act gives same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married straight couples

2007: The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007  outlaws the discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions

2014: The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013  permits same-sex marriages in England and Wales

A Starting Point of Respect: We have cited Douglas Murray at various times previously in these papers and so it would be useful to state and agree with his overall comment as a starter in this chapter:

It seems to me that a large, indeed overwhelming, percentage of the population might be said to agree on a common aspiration that nobody with a competency to perform a task should ever be held back from achieving what they can achieve because of some characteristic over which they have no say. So no young girl, person of colour or person who isn't heterosexual should be held back from entering a profession or rising to its top simply because of their sex, race or sexuality.

Although we say we agree with this statement in general, the purpose of this particular page is to seek to bring a clarity to one particular area of this subject that Murray, himself a self-declared gay, raises, that might be summarized as various key questions:

•  What is Gay?

•  Is it fixed?

•  Does a person identifying as ‘Gay' have any choice in the matter?

Introductory Definitions: I use the word ‘phenomena' in the title of this chapter because the definition of that word is, “a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen,” and I simply want to observe, on the basis of evidence presented, the state of a human beings who are referred to today as ‘gay'.

For clarity sake, the Internet defines gay as “a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.” And while we're at it: ‘homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex  or gender.” (Wikipedia)

The Difficulty of the Task: The difficulty of examining what it means to be a homosexual (or lesbian – a homosexual woman, by definition) is that inevitably there is a defensive if not hostile reaction to ‘an investigation of one's being', which is quite understandable, and thus we need to state from the outset that we accept whole-heartedly those who are absolutely convinced that they were born gay or something within them has changed to make them now ‘gay'. That is their certainty; we may not understand it, but it is their certainty.

In researching these chapters I have used the Internet which at times can be helpful in understanding how others might feel. For example, one writer helpfully reveals a cry from the activist gay community, “We're not sick, we're not sinful, we're just as good and moral as anyone else and we demand our rights,” and later spoke of, “an oppressed people who yearned to live without fear of being hounded by the police, fired from their jobs, scorned by their loved ones, demonized by the church, and diagnosed and tortured by psychiatrists,” and further made the point by providing a picture of demonstrators, one carrying a placard, “Gay is Good”.

With this sort of background it is difficult to suggest investigation without implying a negative view of the gay community. I hope, within this and the next chapter, to aim for a balanced and honest viewpoint, neither of which are always there, I believe.

I will shortly refer again to the writing by Douglas Murray but it may be worth a preliminary comment under this heading. At one point he writes:

For many gay men and women the idea that sexuality is fluid and that what goes one way may go another (what goes up must come down) is an attack on their person.

A little later he adds:

So since the phrase 'It's only a phase' is offensive for some people, the idea that it might actually be true for some people is unsayable.

Flexibility of position is therefore a difficulty we will consider more fully shortly.

Murray, much later in his ‘Gay' chapter raised a question, “something that may be among the biggest issues of all.. is whether being gay means that you are attracted to members of your own sex, or whether it means that you are part of a grand political project.”

To explain that he has to discuss the political dimension of gay activism and quotes America's foremost gay magazine, that declared, “There's a Difference between Gay Sex and Gay,” And speaking about another write who was questioning, “a man who has sex with other men, he questioned whether he was in any other way actually 'gay'.

Did you follow that? A distinction between a person who is genuinely ‘gay' (from the inside out presumably) and a person who simply has gay sex. That I believe is a vitally important distinction. One is a genuine person with a specific outlook on life, the other is someone just giving way to sexual desires to be fulfilled in the easiest way possible. (After the initial lust, to go beyond a one night stand, to maintain and satisfy a woman, takes far more effort and concern for her!)

The Difficulty of Scripture: From a Christian standpoint it will be important to discuss a) what scripture says, b) its context and c) its application. Having read the theological justification of LGBQT by one online writer, I can only say there is obviously a terrible temptation to dream up apparent theological perspectives that would not be countenanced in any other context, and interpretation of scripture similarly. It is said that if you want to prove your point you can always do it from scripture but I have to deny that and say if we adhere firmly to long-accepted rules of interpretation that scholars and theologians have worked on and accepted for many years, many of what can only be described as weird interpretations would again be ruled out of court. We will consider the Scriptures in the next chapter.

Part 16:2 The Vexed Subject of Fixity

An Unusual Resource: As a beginner in searching out the truth of these matters, I wish to rely entirely on Murray's writings, and specifically quotes from the long chapter simply entitled ‘Gay' from his 2020 book, reprinted and added to from 2019, entitled, “The Madness of Crowds.”

Now because I am going to rely heavily on quotes from this book I need to provide some reasoning why I do this:

i) First, he in his books and his journalistic writings, shows himself as someone who is highly educated with a very high level of integrity. (Please hold on to this.)

ii) Second, he is clearly a very highly qualified and thoughtful investigator and his writing reflect that.

ii) Third, he is a self-proclaimed gay. This is vital to hold on to. He speaks as one representing the gay community and, indeed, one who doesn't hold very high view of the fundamentalist wing of the Christian community, we might add.

With this in mind I simply want to go on to take some quotes from Murray that I find both challenging and remarkably honest.

The Challenge of Fixity: I raised this subject in Chapter 4, ‘Introducing the Weapons of the War', in Part 4.4 ‘Declaring Fixity' and noted ‘ Murray goes to some lengths to consider whether being gay is a permanent state and produces evidence to show that it is not .' What I am about to quote I find seriously challenging, and remember it comes from the writings of a self-declared gay intellectual person (and I have restructured it, for clarity of the points he makes). He writes,

“The issue of 'fluidity' remains a complex and often painful one. For many of them, people who join the club and then leave it are far more likely to be reviled than those who never joined at all. They may not show up on surveys, and they certainly don't have national spokespeople or 'community leaders, but a lot of gay people know cases like this:

•  Friends who didn't quite fit in the gay world, who disliked the scene and couldn't find another.

•  People who dipped into it and then jumped out.

•  Or people who had other things they sought in life.

•  People, for instance, who wanted children and the security of marriage and who stopped or sidelined being gay to pursue being something else.

•  Or (and nobody knows what proportion of people this might comprise) people who, having had relationships with members of the same sex for most of their lives, suddenly ….met a member of the opposite sex with whom they fell in love.”

In other words, this gay intellectual writer has the integrity to tell us that all that declares gay is not necessarily gay, a fixed position but, for a variety of reasons CAN CHANGE. In his defence he may say that some of these words refer to people who called themselves gay but were in reality, not. We will look in a moment at the variety of people that may be covered by these comments.

More on Fixity: Murray writes as follows:

In the 1940s the sexologist Alfred Kinsey performed what was up to that point the most sophisticated and wide-ranging fieldwork into human sexual preferences. Despite plenty of methodological quibbles, his findings were for years assumed to be roughly accurate. In the works that were the products of that research (Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male, 1948, and Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female, 1953) Kinsey and his colleagues declared that they had found that 13 per cent of men were 'predominantly homosexual' for at least a three-year period between the age of 16 and 55 and that around 20 per cent of women had had some same-sex experience.

There are two fascinating consequences of this quote:

1. What Kinsey said about experience is known by any teacher, especially in girls' schools where young teenage girls are often known to “have a crush” on older girls or even teachers, a developmental phase that they used to be allowed to grow out of. Now they may succumb to the suggestion that they are lesbians and simply adopt an ongoing lesbian experience.

2. The idea of a three year period, introduced by Kinsey, again confirms what we shall see in a moment, that often apparent homosexual orientation is merely a passing phase – even though Murray balks at that idea.

Elsewhere he declares, “And whether or not anyone is born gay, or whether everyone who is gay is born gay, it does not follow at all that being gay is a one-way street.”

Wow!

Part 16:3 What and Why Gay

Why Gay? A little later after the above words, he faces the difficult question as to why people are gay, or at least declare as gay, and writes,

But the fact that all this can change from one fixed identity to another, and from there to fluidity, points to more than a leap around from one dogma to another It suggests a deep uncertainty about one underlying and rarely mentioned fact, which is that we still don't have much or any idea as to why some people are gay. After decades of research this is a huge — and potentially destabilizing — question to remain unresolved on an identity question which has arrived at the very forefront of our purported values.

Noting how homosexuality has been removed from the category of ‘mental disorders' by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London, he declares “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environment factors,” and notes their comment, “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life.” i.e. I think the double negatives mean the possibilities about fixity are unlimited.

Quoting the American Psychological Association he notes their most up-to-date advice on the matter says:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

That is an interesting quote in that it does not say that scientists lean one way or the other, merely that they can't agree on causes and, presumably, some of those things may be the causes for an individual to declare they are gay. If we had any doubts where Marray stands as a gay person, those doubts are removed when a little later he writes,

the fact that the whole question of what makes someone gay remains unanswered. The law may have changed. But there is almost no more knowledge now than there was beforehand about why and whether someone is or chooses to be homosexual.

Note the word ‘chooses' as a possibility in this quote,

Conclusions about Causes: Note the three things he has been telling us.

•  The cause(s) of homosexuality are unknown.

•  A person may not be fixed in a homosexual orientation and some change from gay to straight.

•  Declaration of homosexual orientation may be a reality OR a choice.

Now while this raises serious questions of interest, even according to some of the above quotes, to question a person's orientation may appear to question their very identity or being, which from their current understanding of who they are, might appear very threatening and undermining. We will seek to pick this up in a later chapter on pastoral concerns.

But Why? Why is it that a number of young people wish to declare themselves as ‘gay'. I suspect there are a variety of reasons that are rarely aired because it is so uncomfortable and, anyway, may not be clear absolutely. Some have suggested the following:

1. Because it is acceptable and has been made ‘normal' and that there are whole communities who are the same. It's easy to ‘come out' and join this particular ‘friendship club'.

2. Because at a certain stage of my life, I was told my feelings for members of my own sex were normal, I went along with that, adopted that lifestyle, now live it, and believe it is what I will be for the rest of my life. (The world has forgotten that most young people go through this developmental stage – hence schoolgirl ‘crushes' on older girls or women teachers – but soon grow out of it. Today the lie is that such a ‘crush' means you are gay and this is the path you ought to follow to be true to yourself, to be authentic.)

3. Because subconsciously (and this is moving into deeper waters) I dislike what I saw of my ‘dad', preferred the woman who was there, and identify more with her (or the reverse). Thirty years ago psychologists were clear on this, not so much today.

4. Building a relationship with a member of the opposite sex requires a learning process built on love that also requires death to self and accommodation of the other which is much less with a member of the same sex. The alternative is ‘hook-up culture' of frequent ‘one-night stands', costing nothing for the man, potentially everything for the woman who frequently simply feels used. (See Louise Perry's carefully documented case in ‘The Case Against the Sexual Revolution'.)

5. Put another way, for females, friendship, companionship, and expression of love is much easier and with less risk with another woman, than with a man. For a man sex-without-strings is easier with another male, quick gratification without cost.

Part 16:4 The Gay Spectrum

Seeking a Broader General Perspective: Bearing in mind the various quotes above, trying to gain some semblance of what the truth is about the gay community, I think it would be fair to suggest (without this in any way being an attack on that community) the following makeup of that community:

•  There will be those who have been certain from their very earliest years that they are homosexual; everything within them says they are more comfortable forming a relationship with a member of the same sex. Now to my understanding this is different from saying, for instance in the case of a man, he feels he is in reality a woman, a cause that has let some down the transgender route that we will consider in a later chapter.

•  There are likely to be some who declare as bisexual – they are comfortable with gay and straight relationships.

•  There are some who are not certain but have gone along with the mores of gay society.

•  There are likely to be some who prefer an ‘opposite-sex-relationship' but simply for the sake of a sexual experience are happy to share a gay experience.

Relationship Differences: In addition to the above assessment by feelings, within the gay community there are likely to be relationally:

•  Those who established a single relationship and have no desire to have multiple partnerships but wish to settle in a committed relationship with the one partner.

•  Those who are essentially ‘dating' other gays but have not come to a place of commitment to one person.

•  Those who have no desire to settle in a permanent relationship but are simply happy to have any sexual relationship that comes along and is offered (see below).

Part 16:5 The Question of Sex

The Sexual Conclusion: Perusing these two spectrums, one has to face the conclusion that at the heart of relationship is sexual experience. If we accept the usual teaching of psychology, in males the sexual experience is likely to be erotic and hasty with little necessary relational context; in females it is more likely to be the outworking of growing relationship. (See Louise Perry in Chapter 15). In both cases at the heart of the experience is pleasure, probably self-pleasure for the man, quite probably giving-pleasure for lesbians.

A further perspective: Andrew Marr, who has appeared as a significant modern historian, in his ‘A History of Modern Britain', (written in 2007 – much changes!) commenting on the arrival of AIDS many years ago, wrote,

it was clear that the vast majority were among homosexual men – though other groups began to be affected, including some women, intravenous drug users….. The first target in America was the gay bath houses and Saunas known for promiscuous, wild and unprotected sex. These had grown up in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and in New York too, as gay men migrated across America during the 60s and 70s to find the most liberal and liberated culture available. A similar shift had happened in America in Britain after the legalisation of homosexual acts by men. As in America gay, liberation was confined to the more liberal areas of the largest cities only, in this case mainly London – the gay scenes of Manchester, Edinburgh and other towns followed slightly later. Gay clubs, gay discos and gay saunas, the latter really placed places for as much promiscuous sex as possible, flourished. Men came south and made up for lost time. Something close to a climate of sexual frenzy developed- a frenzy which would later be imitated by heterosexual youngsters on foreign holidays and resorts.

That did not paint a good picture of the gay community and today many would wish to distance themselves from such a picture, although the truth still appears to remain that (multiple) sexual experience seems to be seen as a natural and expected experience.

Friends or Sexual Partners: I have never heard anyone berating Marr for his writing (or the subsequent TV series) and particularly his comments above in this passage that appears to take the lid off the early liberated gay community. No doubt Gay Pride, which has carefully worked its way into much public acceptance, would like to distance itself from such an image, although it must remain there in the background even if unspoken. However, even Murray in his writings has sought to distance himself from the 'flaunting' that appears to sometimes go on in Gay Pride marches, which does little to make the majority population feel comfortable about the changes in society that we are considering.

The early activists and law-changers went to lengths to change the Law so that what consenting couples (male) did in private could no longer be considered illegal. We briefly considered the spectrum of sexual activities in the previous chapter, but where there is only consent by equal partners (excluding ‘under-age' children), although we may not like some particular experience and consider it weird (and there's a lot of it around) it should never be made the subject of castigation at Law.

With forces at work in recent decades to liberate sexual behaviour it is unfortunate that it taints the very old concepts of good, old-fashioned friendship. Historically two people of the same sex living under the same roof, sharing a flat or apartment perhaps, caused no raised eyebrows. As gay activists made their presence felt in the 1970's the general public started taking note and maybe wrong assumptions made in such situations. The reality is that what goes on behind closed doors is not your business unless there is a clear indication that it comes under the heading of abuse.

The question might reasonably be asked what is so significant about a person ‘coming out'? A similar fair-minded question might be, why is it that gays so often seem to adopt a form of external twee behaviour if not to purposely declare to the world ‘I'm gay' to which a reasonable response might be, “So what?” It seems to this ignorant observer that such behaviour declares, “I am part of a club if there are others like-minded available (for sex) gays out there.” It can't be for simply forming friendships – which you could do with anyone – it has be, to put sex at the top of the social agenda.

Gay & Straight Balance: But this shouldn't be surprising when, according to Louise Perry who we saw in the previous chapter, in some quarters, “sex is nothing more than a leisure activity, only invested with meaning if the participants choose to give it meaning”.

We requote her description of straight-sex culture as follows:

In the West, hook-up culture is normative among adolescents and young adults - both popular culture and survey data indicate that sexual behaviour outside of traditional committed romantic relationships has become increasingly typical and socially acceptable. And although it is possible for young women to opt out, research suggests that only a minority do so. Absent some kind of religious commitment, this is now the normal route presented to girls as they become sexually active. And young people tend to be very anxious about being ‘normal'.

The point we would make, from a Christian standpoint, is that Gay sex is no better or worse than permissive, promiscuous sex by straight partners of the so-called ‘hook-up' culture; both reject and detract from God's design as revealed in the Bible, and to that we will turn in the next paper.

Return to Contents