From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 15:54:15 EDT
Bob wrote, in part: "Biological factors are looking more and more
important as influences on homosexual orientation, as David Myers wrote
(“Accepting What Cannot Be Changed,” Perspectives, June/July, 1999).
He refers to studies that provide new evidence that differences exist
between homosexual and heterosexual men both in prenatal hormones and in
a region of the brain known to influence sexual behavior. Myers, who is
conservative in these matters, is properly cautious about accepting these
studies of biological influences, but leans toward recognizing their
weight... ."
Four points here.
1. The scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined
is, as I see it, weak. It may be so, but I'd hate to have to defend it in
a court of law.
2. There are two (at least) other possible causes, (1) choice and (2)
environment. The first is pretty well ruled out now, at least for most
cases. The scientific case for (2) is, however, even weaker than that for
(1) genetics.
3. That leaves us as (gasp) not knowing with any degree of certainty
which one, nature or nurture, or some combination of both, is
causational.
4. It is my argument, however, that the problem above does not need to be
solved in order to arrive at a Christian moral understanding of an adult
same-gender domestic relationship. It is simply an irrelevant question.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 16:07:01 EDT