Brain structure and sexual orientation:

This week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Ivanka Savic and her colleagues reported an interesting finding: The brains of homosexual males resemble those of heterosexual females (MRI of the brain) while the brains of lesbian females resemble those of heterosexual males. This observation was supported by PET scans of the blood flow to the amygdala – a region of the brain associated with emotions like fear and aggression.

While differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual individuals has been seen before, this research is unique in that it is believed these brain structures are more-or-less stably developed in infancy. This study is not alone. In the past several years there have been a small flood of research studies linking homosexual behavior to either structural or genetic origins. While this does not preclude some environmental stimulus affecting brain structure, it does limit it. Indeed, the researchers comment that they cannot determine from this research whether the difference in brain structure and blood flow are due to genetic differences or due to exposure to hormones (like testosterone) early in development ie. in utero.

At risk is the age-old nature v. nurture debate that has been raging around behavioral science for many years. Are the differences seen in brain structure the cause or the consequence of whatever behavior is being studied. My wife, a psychologist, and I frequently “debate” this issue late into the night. As a person trained in the biological sciences, I tend to fall on the “nature” side of this debate. While she is beginning to come round to my side of the debate, she often counters with the recent studies in epigenetics, which indicate that behavior CAN change gene expression. When talking about things like eating disorders and depression, it is pretty easy to say that it doesn’t really matter what the cause is, so long as we can find a medication to treat the symptoms. We all realize that in the case of sexual orientation, the debate has a lot more riding on it.

For the Christians in the holiness tradition, discoveries like those presented in this paper may have profound implications. Lately, a colleague in the religion department and I have been thinking about these implications at some length.
Some would argue that this smacks of genetic/structural determinism. There are at least two diametrically opposed conclusions that a rational person might reach from this research:

1. If God made me this way, then it must be in his will for me to act out on the way He made me.
2. These structures are abnormal and we need to look for a way to correct them – whether that be surgically or medicinally – there must be a “cure”.

The trouble is; both of these conclusions have flaws.

“God made me this way” is probably not a viable sole defense for any behavior. For example, I have a sweet tooth. At times it is nearly impossible for me to control my overpowering desire to eat doughnuts, chocolate, and ice cream. These items are OK in moderation, but my desire for them goes way beyond that. Indeed, I have determined that it is best for my health to avoid certain sweet foods altogether because they cause me to overindulge. Similar arguments could be made for alcohol, drugs, smoking, pornography, etc. For me, and for many, it is best that we simply avoid these items altogether. No license to indulge here; rather an opportunity to exercise self-control. Please don’t misunderstand; I am not implying that sexual orientation is as easy to “control” as my oral delight in sweets. I am simply pointing out that there are other behaviors it is wise to subdue. Indeed, many heterosexuals find it difficult to manage their sexual desires within the context of God’s design. Controlling sex drive is a human issue, not a gay issue.

Seeking chemical or structural modification as a solution to certain behaviors may be similarly flawed – though for different reasons. The brain is a very complex organ – it is the seat of personality, cognition, creativity, and (many would argue) the very soul itself. Making organic changes to the brain may run the risk of altering substantial components of the self. At times, this can make life easier – treatment for chronic depression is a great example - but how much do we actually lose in the process? A very dear friend of mine is a schizophrenic. When he is faithfully taking his medication he does marginally well in society. He has friends; he can get around and live by himself. When he is not taking his medication (which occasionally happens) he becomes paranoid, hears voices, and might be dangerous to himself. Here is the tough part. When he is off his medication, he is one of the most gifted artists I know – near genius level creativity! When he is taking the meds his gift suffers from a lack of inspiration. His art becomes predicable, bland, and rather mundane.

So where is the middle ground? How can we genuinely help a person who wants to be different without squashing the spirit of those who want to be who they are? Does it come down to choice? Will some choose to be as they are (whatever the issue) while others choose to be different? Isn’t that what the Holy Spirit is supposed to do – draw people toward God? Isn't it also the role of the Holy Spirit to convict a person of sin? Do we run the risk of "playing God" on either side of this issue? Sorry, no answers – just more questions.