(Dailymail) A 19st [approx. 266 lbs] rugby player suffered a stroke while training – and discovered when he woke up that he was gay.
Chris Birch, 26, had proposed to his girlfriend and worked in a bank when he suffered a freak accident in the gym.
He was taken to the Royal Gwent hospital where his girlfriend and family waited for news – but said: ‘I was gay when I woke up and I still am.’
[…]
Chris said: ‘It sounds strange but when I came round I immediately felt different.
‘I wasn’t interested in women any more. I was definitely gay.
‘I had never been attracted to a man before – I’d never even had any gay friends. But I didn’t care about who I was before, I had to be true to my feelings.’
One of the predominant arguments offered for the moral benignity or goodness of same-sex sexual desires and behaviors is genetic determinancy, i.e., ‘I was born that way’. When coupled with immutability — sexuality cannot be changed — the homosexual activist community believes it is on solid ground with this one-two punch.
Birch’s story seems to expose genetic determination and immutability for what it is — a paper tiger. I am not going to argue whether same-sex sexual behavior is moral or immoral, it’s irrelevant to the point I am making. What’s important is Birch’s story does not fit the mold that the homosexual activist has cast.
Birch was not born with same-sex sexual attraction, but claims to truly feel he is now sexually attracted to men. Had Birch been born a heterosexual man, and sexuality cannot change — if the homosexual activist’s argument is air tight — Birch ought to still be a heterosexual man. One of three conditions is true:
- Sexuality is strictly genetic and therefore immutable
- Sexuality is strictly optional
- Sexuality is influenced by multiple factors and is not immutable
Birch’s case seems to render 1 false along with the testimony of scores of people who claim to have been homosexual who are now heterosexual, and vice versa. There are many skeptical objectors to the veracity of these claims. But all that would show is people are not required to succumb to their desires.
Sexual desires — not to be confused with sexual behavior — do not seem to be able to be switched back and forth at will. Anyone could decide to have sex with anyone at all, but I am hesitant to believe they could decide to be sexually attracted to anyone at all.
Sexuality is apparently influenced by multiple factors, both inside and outside the individual. Environment and — to whatever degree — brain chemistry play a role in people’s sexuality. Sexual desires are malleable. This is something I think everyone can attest to. For example, since marrying my wife, I tend to find women who share similarities to her attractive. And although I have never found men sexually attractive, there are plenty of once heterosexual men who now do.
What Chris Birch’s story has at the least demonstrated, is that sexual desires are not irrevocably genetic. We are not slaves to our desires. Our sexuality has not been carved in stone. The argument that sexuality is set and not a matter up for moral debate is defunct. If it is at least possible to shape our desires, the out working of those desires is most definitely a moral issue.
Sifting Reality 
I tend to think that like your anecdote regarding the attributes of your wife, sexual attraction changes, or can change, for a variety of reasons without ever truly being fixed. As one guy might describe himself as “a leg man”, another might be attracted to women who are oriental, or tall, or have any combination of physical traits. Another may have described himself as preferring blondes, but then a particular brunette turns his head and from then is forever in favor of those with dark hair.
I think gender attraction is very much the same, though to what degree is debatable. I have absolutely nothing to support this perspective, but it makes sense to me. With men to women, or women to men, there is no cultural pressure one way or the other in preferences based on physical appearance, though there was greater pressure regarding race at one time. It is easy and without negative consequences for one to prefer butts and so choose what constitutes the ultimate woman, and then decide it is breast size or or some other trait that is the basis for one’s desires. But gender? That’s loaded with implications that also impact the degree of attraction. Taboos always play a role in such things and may increase desires all by itself.
So I don’t have any facts to back up my thoughts on this. Just my opinion so let’s roll with it. I am pretty liberal in my thinking and if someone ‘chooses’ to be gay so be it. However, from the conversations I have had with people that are, it always seems to me that they are lacking some sort of spirtual connection, and if they had it, they would probably not ‘think’ that they were gay at all. I may be going out on a limb, but I think parts of it may come from insecurities with the opposite sex and just feeling comfortable and accepted from those of the same gender. Not sure…just a thought. Not to say all people who claim to be gay have no God in their life, but seeing a large potion that do not and I think it has an affect.
Waking up gay?? Maybe just a reason to finally come out and the desire was always there.
@Judy
I would say that’s a fair assessment. Some people will claim there is a rejection of God and religion because there is a rejection of homosexuality by God and religion. But even that seems to be a justification for silencing the conscience.
right, because one person’s experience under unusual circumstances
is more valid than all the other gay people and scientific research combined
how can we know he wasn’t suppressing the gay before and now, after a near fatal incident, decided to be honest about himself?
if he wasn’t gay before, then we need to know what changed in his brain and consider that with everything else that we know.
It’s not like this brain event can be re-created to convert gays to straight, so, it’s an interesting sidebar at best, but nothing that has any impact to the reality that people are still gay for whatever reason that they are.
@ntrygg
Which scientific research are you referring to?
This is the route homosexual activists always take: “how can we know he wasn’t suppressing the gay before and now, after a near fatal incident, decided to be honest about himself?” Homosexuals need this to be the case otherwise the “born that way” argument deflates and they cannot equate it to race or hair color.
@ Judy and John
There are religious gay people and Ted Haggard is proof that religion doesn’t make you straight.
Ntrygg
Neither one of us are saying that. Judy’s point seems to be that there appears to be a corrolation between homosexuality and atheism or a general hostility toward God and religion. Of course there are going to be exceptions to the rule. But my experience is that the majority of homosexuals are atheists or “spiritual but not religious”.
John,
Can I interject to say that the correlation between homosexuality and atheism is more likely the result of religious attitudes toward being gay and nothing else? I would only agree with Judy insofar as most Christians who sexually identify as gay likely try much harder to “fix” their “problem”.
What I’m suggesting is that atheism is more likely a reaction to the treatment of gays by Christians rather than being an atheist making someone more likely to “decide to be gay”.
It appears that you and Judy are claiming that “atheist” is the pre-existing condition and “gay” is a symptom- which I find as ridiculous as claiming that being a “white supremacist” is the pre-existing condition and being “Caucasian” is a symptom.
There are many people who genuinely seek a relationship with God who are gay. Many of them, I suspect, turn to agnosticism, atheism, or mysticism as a result of the culture of the church. Go read John Shore’s blog.
You will find a perfect example of people who self-identify as both gay and Christian- and people who self-identify as Christian and embracing-of-sexual-differences-that-are-neither-harmful-nor-evil.
So the ball is really in your court. You can say, and I am 99% certain you will, that John Shore et al. are not really Christians. That doesn’t answer the question why so many “atheist gays” are longing to make peace with Jesus- albeit by seeking out “bad theology”. It also stands in some sense as an admission that Christian culture makes seeking Jesus as a homosexual necessarily an admission on the part of a “seeking person” that their homosexuality is abhorrent. As we both know (I think, at least) there are no good non-theological arguments for that position.
George
Before continuing, I don’t want this to get to a point where we are discussing homosexuality and the church, or why homosexuals are or are not Christians. Judy mentioned her opinion on it, and since she did, you responded and I’ll respond to you, but that’s where we leave this particular discussion for another time. Since that wasnt the point of this post (feel free to comment on the post itself).
My view on the correlation between homosexuality and atheism is far too long to post in this comment section. But I will say this. I think the reason they feel uncomfortable in churches is due to several reasons.
1. Many Christians have an aversion to homosexuals. The blame can be placed at the feet of Christians and homosexual activists as I note in [Get] Over The Rainbow. Too many Christians do not know how to handle homosexuals when they encounter them. There is a compulsion to preach at them. Christians need to learn how to properly treat them, and how to properly discuss the issue with tact and charity. Homosexuals need to learn to not be so hostile and quick to name call.
2. Homosexuals reject God and religion because they both tend to declare homosexuality to be sinful. There is an over abundance of focus on sexuality as part of their core identity that heterosexuals do not. Since there is that condemnation to such a large part of them, there is a resentment. Homosexuals moreso than other demographics have an inability to differentiate between who they are and what they do. What is being said is: Homosexual sexual relationships are sinful. What they hear is: Homosexuals are bad people. They will more often than not reject the Bible because the bible says they shouldnt do the things they are doing, even if no Christian ever says it to them.
3. The bible says that anyone who is unrepentant of their sin, their salvation should be questioned. Not that we determine it, God does. And the Bible has passages of people with certain lives of particular sins will not inherit the Kingdom. But that is not limited to practicing homosexuals. I think homosexuals who profess to be believers do so inspite of the clear admonitions of their sexual behaviors. The passages must either be ignored or interpreted in such a way as to mean the opposite of what they actually say. I think anyone willing to submit the bible to their life rather than their life to the bible are not really Christians, but that goes for anyone trying to justify promiscuity, theft, adultery, excessive drinking, or any number of other sins.
We all sin. The difference with homosexuals is, they are one of the only — if not the only — demographic of sinners who actually indulge, thrive, and revel in their sin. Adulterers don’t advertize and demand you accept them for who they are. The promiscuous dont do it either. Homosexuality seems to be in a class of it’s own in this respect.
I wouldn’t classify homosexual Christians in a sweeping way that they are not really Christians, it would be a case by case basis. But anyone who claims to be a believer and then does whatever they can to keep in their sin is suspect.
We will always have homosexuals with us and I have resigned myself to that fact, however, I don’t believe for a minute they are born that way. It is a lifestyle choice brought on, likely, by some childhood trauma, an absent or inattentive parent, childhood sexual abuse, or some other dysfunctional childhood experiences.
I have nothing against Homosexuals. I’ve never met one I didn’t like, personally. If they want to be homosexual, that’s their choice, but don’t try to convince me they were born that way. That defies logic.
Plain and simple, homosexuality is not about who someone is but about how someone behaves.
Judy’s point seems to be that there appears to be a corrolation between homosexuality and atheism or a general hostility toward God and religion. Of course there are going to be exceptions to the rule. But my experience is that the majority of homosexuals are atheists or “spiritual but not religious”.
I see that you don’t want to cover this here, but I will just say that George is most likely right, looking at the evidence, and not Judy or you.
Of course, folk who are demonized as sinners and abominations(!) for their natural sexual attractions are going to be likely to give up church. But it’s the church that’s left them (or, oftentimes, KICKED them out – and I know this from hearing this over and over first hand) rather than them leaving God.
Where IS the right post to talk about this?
Dan
Should we not tell adulterers they are sinners in fear that they might have hostility toward God? Is that how we get people in the door, never tell them they are doing wrong?
John,
I’m glad that you concede your point to me.
It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.
What do you mean, George?
I was being pithy.
Your statement underlines my point- it was meant as humour. Perhaps I should have changed it to:
Does that help?