CMDA's The Point

Mistaken Identity: There is No Straight or Gay

October 26, 2017
Mistaken Identity: There is No Straight or Gay October 26, 2017

by Andrè Van Mol, MD

So who are we? Products of random mutation and natural selection without meaning or purpose? That explains little, really, and offers even less in directing how we ought to live. Blaise Pascal described man as a mixture of “greatness and wretchedness,” the “glory and the refuse of the universe.” The inferences to sin and goodness are real and beg a few questions worth exploring. 

The Judeo-Christian claim that we are created in the imago Dei, the image of God, with a past, present and future is both inspirational and world changing. In Encounters with Jesus, Tim Keller notes secular humanist French philosopher Luc Ferry’s assertion that the philosophy of human rights and dignity come from the concepts of being made in the image of God and that the Logos is a person, without which human rights “would never have established itself.” Europe’s premier philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, stated, “Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity...human rights and democracy, is the direct heir of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love...To this day, there is no alternative to it...Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.”

So if we are made in God’s image, why trade it in for a bowl of lentil stew like Esau? That requires failure to appreciate who we are and therefore our birthright. What can draw us away? The first attempt documented in Scripture was this phrase, “Has God indeed said...?” which was offered by the serpent to Eve (Genesis 3:1b, NKJV). And another misdirection came with it, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5, NKJV). But Adam and Eve were already created in God’s image, “like” Him. So the lie was multifaceted, subversive, twisted and even had a theological/religious component. When Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, Satan was quite religious in approach, accurately quoting a raft of Scriptures to mislead Jesus—quoting accurately, but not in season. Satan attacks identity, striving to separate us from who we are made to be. Mistaken identity is costly.

Enter the false identity of GLBT. “Gay" as revisionist vocabulary meant being uninhibited regarding sexual boundaries, notably heterosexual ones, much like “swinger.” It then became the catchword for men who have sex with men. In either case, “gay” was “carefree,” unhindered by sexual norms. Stanford-trained gay historian David Benkof explained, “...scholars of gay history and anthropology...almost all LGBT themselves...have decisively shown that gayness is a product of Western society originating about 150 years ago...Gay and lesbian historians aren’t just claiming that before the 19th century nobody was called ‘gay.’ They’re saying nobody was gay (or straight)...homosexuality was generally something one could do, not something one could be...In tech-speak, that means being gay is in the software of some people’s lives, but it’s in nobody’s hardware.” 

Michael W. Hannon’s insightful essay, “Against Heterosexuality,” described in more detail the falsehood of “orientation essentialism” and its dark past. Hannon begins with Gore Vidal’s once-and-once-again provocative statement, “Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person.” Hannon explained that 19th century European aristocrats launched the homosexual/heterosexual terminology to replace the disfavored religious concepts of sin, natural law and the sexual self-control that would reinforce marriage and procreation, thus rendering “homosexuality” as a psychiatric issue and “heterosexuality” (and any immoral practice therein) as normal. He quotes Yale and NYU leftist sexual historian Jonathan Ned Katz’s statement, “Contrary to today’s bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.”

Hannon argues the heterosexual-homosexual distinction misleads in pretending not to be a social construct but an innate natural category; is too neat, tidy and absolute; causes already sexually-preoccupied teens to panic about sexual identity; and is a corrosive to Christian faithfulness. How? “Canonizing” attractions and temptations hinders their proper taming by overstating their importance. “Gayness” increases opportunity for sin by “dramatization of the temptation,” so it “further enslaves the sinner” (“it’s who I am”), intensifies lust by overstating the significance of the desire and fosters self-pity that feeds entitlement. Why obey commandments when you are entitled to sexual gratification because of who you are? To me, this calls back to Proverbs, “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25, NKJV). And the apostle Paul warned, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8, NKJV).

Medical and scientific literature prefer clear definitions such as MSM (men having sex with men) and WSW (women having sex with women) as the behaviors are self-explanatory. Behaviors, not identities. Dr. Lisa Diamond, a lead LGBT researcher for the American Psychological Association and co-editor-in-chief of their 2014 Handbook on Sexuality and Psychologywrote, “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus...that definitively ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.” In his amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Obergefell vs. Hodges, Johns Hopkins’ famed psychiatrist Paul McHugh wrote, “Sexual orientation is a complex and amorphous phenomenon...There is no scientific consensus on how to define sexual orientation, and the various definitions proposed by experts produce substantially different classes.” 

Princeton Professor Robert P. George helpfully offers some guidance: “Do not identify your self with your desires. Letting desires define us is the most abject form of slavery. Self-mastery is true freedom.” He also said, “We can have reasons for wanting to do this or that; but wanting to do something is not a reason for doing it. Desires are not reasons.” 

My point is that “gay” and “straight,” along with “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” are ideological terms, and false ones. They don’t exist. There is no straight or gay.
Until a century and a half ago, sexuality was a verb, not a noun; a behavior and not an identity; what you do, not who you are. Self-identified gay artist and writer Brandon Ambrosino offered this concession, “My gayness is not the most fundamental aspect of my identity; it seems to me that someone could ideologically disapprove of my sexual expression while simultaneously loving and affirming my larger identity.” And so we should. But let’s also encourage people in their true identities and not affirm false harmful ones, no matter the spirit of the age.

About Andrè Van Mol, MD

André Van Mol, MD is a board-certified family physician in private practice. He serves on the boards of Bethel Church of Redding and Moral Revolution (, and is the co-chair of the American College of Pediatrician’s Committee on Adolescent Sexuality. He speaks and writes on bioethics and Christian apologetics, and is experienced in short-term medical missions. Dr. Van Mol teaches a course on Bioethics for the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry. He and his wife Evelyn —both former U.S. Naval officers—have two sons and two daughters, the latter of whom were among their nine foster children.


  1. Re: Reality Check on November 14, 2018 at 1:55 pm

    It always strikes me as funny that the first people to criticize identity politics are people in a position of privilege due to their identity. Of course it’s easy for you to say “there’s no ‘straight’ or ‘gay” when you don’t need to identify as straight to have the rights and freedoms that you do. Being able to identify as GLBTQ awards queer people the political and social opportunities that have been historically denied of them. So please, do yourself a favor and drop the equalist, “we’re all the same underneath” etc. facade and recognize that eliminating labels means oppressing the very people that Christ himself wanted to protect, i.e., disenfranchised minorities.

    • Vantum on January 5, 2019 at 8:31 am

      I disagree because there are no political or social opportunities denied to a person for what they do in their sexual privacy. Humans who prefer homosexuality were getting married before it was legal (see: Dog Day Afternoon). We’ve probably had a president that preferred homosexuality and would have never known.

      This article is spot on and you can see a clear agenda being played out to indoctrinate people into relegating their identity to a social group based on sexual preference. Eliminating labels doesn’t oppress the people that makes absolutely no sense also considering you used the label ‘disenfranchised minorities after.’

      It is the labeling that has historically shown to cause more oppression than the fluidity of expression however social.

      You contradicted yourself by claiming that labels don’t oppress yet at the same time saying the labels allow freedoms, as if people were not and still not oppressed for being labeled based on how much Melanin they have or the shape of their eyes. I would suggest you actually read the article and form a better assessment before you sheepishly White Knight for establishment. The more you label the more you can control.

      • Marcus Kendziora on April 24, 2019 at 5:35 pm

        You need to read before making statements you know nothing about, “I disagree because there are no political or social opportunities denied to a person for what they do in their sexual privacy.” The LGBT can still (in 2019) get fired from their jobs, get evicted from a rental home, or denied medical care based on their sexual orientation. If a person is LGBT they should be equal in every way heterosexuals are. PERIOD! If that means being proud of who we are (after being tortured by heteros for centuries) and opened about who we are than I say shout it from the roof-tops. This is just another way to push us back into the closet. IT WON’T WORK! Like or not we will win. I would never want to be mistaken for a heterosexual anyway. Gross! I’m mean, heterosexual have been in control throughout history for 200,000 year, through human evolution too, and look at the state of the world today. Pollution, hunger, poverty, homelessness, racism, sexism, homophobia, trans-phobia, and the list go on-and-on. It’s time the LGBT takeover. We can clean this world up. Clean up the mess heterosexuals made.

        • Paul on January 25, 2021 at 4:59 pm

          Except, heterosexuals don’t exist, but what exists is bigoted people who have sex with the opposite gender and probably have experimented with the same gender too. The problem isn’t sex, but oppression and personally I think “straight” is an oppressive label because it pressures all single people into the idea that something is wrong with them if they don’t sexually express themselves.

  2. REGINALD KASAVAL on March 2, 2020 at 4:25 am

    Homosexuality is improper a sin and absolutely abnormal. That it should be defended by so-called ‘enlightened’ protagonists – is a crying shame and blatant ignorance. Factually and naturally speaking – the anus was made for exit NOT for entry! Anything unnatural is ungodly, unsociable and unacceptable!

    • Noa Walker on October 13, 2020 at 12:11 am

      “Anything unnatural is ungodly, unsociable, and unacceptable!” What is natural? Agriculture certainly isn’t natural, it was developed by man. So definitely don’t eat anything unless you find it growing in the wilderness. Computers aren’t natural, so you should probably throw yours away — you know, the one you typed this on. You shouldn’t listen to recorded music either, that’s unnatural and therefore ungodly. If these aren’t unnatural and therefore ungodly, unsociable and unacceptable, than what do you mean by “nature”? Do you mean “purpose”, as in “the nature of a phone is to allow people to have a conversation when they’re in different places”. Is the nature of a dog to be a pet? I wouldn’t say so. Therefore, by your logic, pets must be unnatural, ungodly, unsociable, and unacceptable. Or do you mean the nature of sex is for procreation? No sex for you unless it’s for making a kid, then. Right? Or is it true that sex is also for pleasure, and connection. It sounds like you’re trying to rationalize your own disgust. It’s ok, you have a right to be disgusted, but your logic is utterly false, and not that sophisticated. I think it’s disgusting to spend your life worrying so much about how other people experience attraction and love. Factually and naturally speaking — consciousness evolved for compassion, not for hatred. Anything hateful is ungodly, unsociable and unacceptable!

  3. Kevin on May 20, 2020 at 6:00 pm

    The irony of the whole article is quoting Colossians 2:8

Leave a Comment