Sexual orientation: nature, nurture and ethical framework

General Synod member Glynn Harrison, a Consultant Psychiatrist, and Norah Cooke Hurle Professor of Mental Health at Bristol University, prepared but was unable to deliver the following contribution at the recent Synod meeting.

'Archbishop Rowan Williams has called for the Church to undertake further theological work on issues of human sexuality. But as the quality of debate in the General Synod has illustrated only too well, there is an urgent need for further study of the medical and scientific developments in this field as well.

'Over the past 30 years the view has become widely held that sexual orientation is a fixed and enduring category of human experience. This is usually linked with a strong presumption of biological causation. We have heard reports of a ‘gay gene’ found on the q28 region of the X chromosome and been shown evidence of apparent differences in the hypothalamic region of the brains of gay men.

'Taken together, these data have seemed to point to a general and plausible biological story. We have come to believe that if we categorise people on the basis of the gender of those to whom they are attracted to (making them hetero- or homosexuals etc), we are saying something deep and important about them. We believe we are ‘carving nature at the joints’ or recognising different human ‘kinds’.

'The reliability of the evidence supporting this view is particularly important because it is used as a powerful argument in the current debate. Those holding a traditional biblical view of human sexuality may be portrayed as scientific illiterates or bigots bent on denying the very essence of another person’s humanity. It is the ‘so you are denying who I am’ argument. This is a serious allegation so we need to take a careful look at the evidence that supports it.

'More recent brain imaging studies indeed confirm that certain behaviours show up in the size and functionality of different areas in the brain: that is not in contention. We can see differences in the brains of people who lie a great deal, or who are good at juggling, even in the brains of London taxi drivers.

'But these studies have also shown that our behaviour shapes our brain as well as our brain shaping our behaviour. And in the wake of the human genome project we now have a much better understanding of the way genes can be switched on and off by our environment and the way we respond to it. When it comes to understanding complex human behaviours the roles of environment, experience and human choice, as well as biological susceptibility, are back in the reckoning.

'So we should not be surprised that those early findings of a ‘gay gene’ and ‘gay brains’ have not been replicated. Indeed, in recent studies the evidence for a significant genetic contribution to what we call sexual ‘orientation’ has weakened rather than strengthened.

'The notion that there are enduring and discrete categories of sexual ‘orientation’ is also problematic. Among recent critiques of the existing data, none is more compelling or comprehensive than that of the leading gay philosopher and legal theorist, Edward Stein. In nature, and especially in the sphere of complex human behaviours, few things fall into neat boxes. We have much more to learn about the different dimensions of our sexual desires, and how durable they really are. And there is preliminary evidence that some people (by no means all) report changes in their predominant pattern of sexual preference as a result of reorientation therapies. These are tentative data of variable quality but they are sufficiently plausible to merit further examination.

'None of this of course invalidates the experience (and felt pain) of people who experience strong same-sex desire. Neither am I arguing that biological susceptibilities do not play some role in the genesis of those experiences (or indeed in other sexual preferences to do with the ethnicity or age of the kind of people one is attracted to or different behaviours or objects that arouse our sexual desires). All complex human behaviours are underpinned biologically at some level. The point is that sexual experiences and preferences are just as capable of being contained within an ethical framework as are other human desires.

'So there is nothing in the medical or scientific evidence at the moment that need cause us to abandon the teaching of scripture on the rightful place of sexual activity within the marriage covenant or to question the traditional wisdom of the Church on this matter. Indeed, we need to regain our confidence in the Gospel - the teaching of scripture in relation to sexuality is good news for our society.

'Calls for a Church ‘listening process’ now provide us with an opportunity to pay much closer attention to the scientific and theological evidence than hitherto. And when we listen to personal narratives of pain and distress, as we must, let us make sure we include those people with stories of personal change or positive experiences of celibacy – their voices need to be heard too.'