During the next legislative session a gay rights bill is likely to be introduced to the State Legislature. Gay activists have so far been unable to get such legislation passed in New Mexico – but next year could be different. A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals on January 30 of this year recognized the “rights” of non-adoptive, non-biological, lesbian mothers. Additionally, medical and psychiatric research from earlier this year seems to point to a growing amount of evidence that homosexuality may have a biological influence. If true, and homosexuality is inborn to one degree or another, then why shouldn’t homosexuals be afforded legal rights based solely upon their sexual preference?

Addressing the moral and biblical evidence for a moment, we should recognize that it’s not impossible for homosexuality to have a biological influence. That doesn’t mean, however, that rights based on sexuality should be granted.

The most recent study of identical and fraternal twins and adoptive brothers demonstrated that those with the theoretically more alike genes tended to be homosexual if one of the twins was homosexual. If one twin was gay there was a 52 percent chance of the other twin also being gay. This is important because identical twins are made up of the same genetic material. Fraternal twins had a 22 percent chance of both being homosexual. What is obvious is that not all who were homosexual had homosexual siblings – so the genetic influence is not absolute.

The belief now is that there may be some gene (or as with a recent study of the hypothalamus), or chemical imbalance that facilitates a greater desire for sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Think of it, a genetic code (or lack thereof), which has the potential to give a person a predisposition toward homosexual lust. Is it possible? Is it biblically possible?

When the Bible refers to homosexuality it does so in three contexts: Behavior, choice, and sin. There is nothing in the Bible, however, that forbids the possibility of a genetic influence for a homosexual disposition.

Homosexual activists would have us believe that since a genetic code or chemical imbalance influences their behavior that homosexuality must then be natural and morally acceptable. However, what if it were discovered that there is a genetic influence for pedophilia or bestiality? Should pedophiles and people who have sex with animals granted special protection based upon their sexual preferences? Clearly, moral appropriateness is not determined by genetic codes or chemical make-up.

When God made man He made him without sin. Adam and Eve had no homosexual, self-sexual, violent, or other sinful desires. God did not give them such desires since such desires God calls “sin.” The Bible is clear, God is not the author of sin.

When Adam and Eve rebelled and fell into sin all of creation was changed. Man’s spirit was darkened, his mind was made aware of evil and his genetic code corrupted. The sin nature is not confined to the spirit of man – but his mind and body are affected as well.

Deuteronomy 6, Romans 12, and other passages command us to submit our bodies to God along with our hearts and minds. Romans 6 is filled with references to the “body of sin.” When Jesus Christ died on the cross He suffered in spirit, being separated from God (Psalm 22). He suffered in His mind and in His body. Jesus suffering for our sin encompassed every part of His being, signifying that the sin nature that He died for infects more than our hearts, but our chemically imbalanced minds and genetically corrupted bodies as well.

Man’s corruption is passed down from generation to generation, including genetic faults. Some diseases are passed genetically, though they can skip generations. It is possible that at the fall of man a genetic failure was introduced enabling certain sin dispositions in the physical nature of man. We often think the “lust of the flesh” refers to the desire for sin in the heart, but hey, it’s “lust of the flesh.” God was also referring to our physical corruption. The sin nature encompasses the whole person – body, mind, and spirit.

If this analysis and speculation teaches us anything it’s that homosexuality is a trap that is difficult to get out of – though not impossible. The homosexual person needs to exercise something else that God has given to every person – the free will to make choices.

God still calls homosexuality a sin, whether genetically influenced or not. He has also provided that such influences are not absolute. We can live as animals do, basing life on the desire to fulfill certain appetites, or we can make the free choice from what we know about God’s word, and believe about Jesus Christ, not to sin. Genetically influenced or not, the Bible’s stand on homosexuality remains unchanged and correct as it has always been.

Our stand should be no different. Special legal privileges should not be granted based upon sexuality. Moral and legal appropriateness should not be based upon biology. Biology may offer insight into human nature, but it cannot inform us about morality – right and wrong.