[asa] science and homosexuality

In response to David Campbell's offline letter, below, about inconclusive
scientific information as to the cause of homosexuality.

I disagree that the evidence is inconclusive. There are lengthy
bibliographies from psychology and psychiatry websites. There is some link
to environment, but by far most cases of homosexuality appear to be
physiological. Articles include evidence that homosexuality runs in extended
families; that it is 50% likely that a twin will be homosexual, given that
the first one is - even if they have been raised separately; homosexuality
exists in many species of the animal kingdom; there are differences in the
brains of homosexuals that do not cause different test results in any sort
of aptitude tests.

Paul Seely asked me to send him some information, and I did. I have read
some very strong articles in the past.Last night I did a web search which
yielded a number of studies published by psychology and psychiatry websites.
There were also results from less verifiably reputable websites which had
excellent bibliographies. I can forward you what I sent to Paul if you like.
I hope to go through and compile an intellectual article on the subject, but
I run a business, so the endeavor is ambitious at the least.

The animals who are homosexual include sheep and other species. One article
said that sheep breeders will not purchase a male sheep for breeding until
they have seen him perform, because the incidence of exclusive homosexuality
in sheep is 8.5%. There are other species involved.

There is also the fact that anal sex in the male causes friction against the
prostate gland which can lead to orgasm. Why is this so? What positive
purpose does it have?

I cannot answer the morality question, and agree there is a dilemma.
However, I see a very strong correlation to diabetes. A person is
genetically predisposed or not. In some cases, their behavior affects the
onset. Behavior definitely affects the resulting damage. Once a diabetic, it
really isn't possible to ever not be one again.

My conclusion is that this is a physiological condition. The Bible seems to
indicate that the only 'right' choice is to abstain from sexual intercourse.
However, I don't think I could do that if I were in that situation. I think
it is 'there but by the grace of God go I', and I just don't think I could
handle it well.

If we approach the problem as an 'original sin' issue - then there is room
for discussion and there is room for improvement within a Christian
framework.

Certainly, monogomy is better than promiscuous behavior. What is wrong with
allowing Microsoft and others from including the partners on insurance? This
isn't hallowed ground.

Texas just passed a law against homosexual adoption. Do I agree with it?
Probably not - it depends. If one of the gays is the child's natural parent
and the child is being raised by the two of them, then adoption is likely
appropriate. If they have the same opportunity as straight parents to adopt
an unknown child - then I am probably against it. It is very complicated.

I find abortion complicated, but far less complicated than homosexuality.
Did you know that, at least in my state, there is a very strong set of
programs in place to provide support to a pregnant woman and her child
through the child's first birthday? If the mother goes to the antiabortion
clinic (these now outnumber abortion clinics) they will give her a pregnancy
test and a map of how to get through the system. She can be well above the
poverty level and get all medical for herself and the baby for free. If she
is too far above, she can get 50% of her own and 100% of the baby's for
free. Depending on her income, she can also get free fresh produce and a
variety of other 'good for you' foods. The antiabortion clinic will also
help to provide assistance in many other areas. THIS is an ANSWER. This is
politicians putting love in action. Why don't we know about this? I don't
see it on the news. Sex outside of marriage is definitely not Biblically
approved. If we took the same attitude here as we do for homosexuality, then
we would be shouting at pregnant women to not get pregnant and letting them
starve on the streets. As it is, we aren't violating any church principles
in giving a hand up. What is being done is loving and probably extremely
effective in preventing more than a few abortions.

That is what I would like to see for homosexuality. I don't know how - but
there has got to be a way.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: David Campbell [mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:46 AM
  To: Debbie Mann
  Subject: [SPAM]science and homosexuality from Re: the ASA email list

  I don't know if this is of interest for the list, so I am sending it to
you.

>I also sent a good bit of scientific information which I have gleaned
from various
    sources and asked for comment - which I did not get. I had hoped that
there
    would be discussion on the fact that there is substantial scientific
    evidence that homosexuality is a 'natural' condition, in that it occurs
in
    nature in animal species, and how these facts should affect our
approach as
    educated Christians. The 'approach' part of this may be too political
for
    the 'return to basics' that is trying to be achieved, but the scientific
    facts should not.

  The lack of reply might in part reflect the fact that, as several other
posts mentioned, many people have not been reading the thread. The topic
has come up before on the list, and I know of nothing new.

  There is substantial evidence that claims that there is scientific
evidence for or against homosexuality being a "natural" condition reflect
the political motives of those making the claim.

  The fact that an animal does something in no way means it is appropriate
or inherent to humans, so the underlying assumption is flawed. Also, most
animal "homosexuality" is either mistaken identity or the use of sexual
behavior as an expression of social dominance; there are also fish and many
invertebrates that may change sex, be both sexes, etc., which are simply
physiologically and genetically contrary to normal human capabilities. I
know that the reported homosexual behavior in pygmy chimps does not exactly
fall into those categories, but not much more about them; on the other hand,
it may reflect zoo animals having relatively little to occupy their time.
Another factor is that some popular pollutants affect sexual characteristics
in many animals (reported evidence in humans is controversial, but enough
different kinds of organisms show these effects that it is almost certain
that high doses would affect us, too-the question is whether current levels
in people are high enough to cause problems).

  Many of the studies purporting to show genetic determination of
homosexuality in humans have serious flaws. On the other hand, it seems
highly likely that a mutation could affect hormone levels, etc. and thus
predispose one to homosexuality. Again, there is a significant problem in
the implicit assumption that a natural predisposition means moral
acceptability-we are naturally inclined to sin, for example. Some
mutations, e.g. hair color, are considered normal variation in humans. Some
mutations are considered genetic diseases that should be fixed. Some
mutations predispose people to vulnerability to certain problems, including
socially or personally harmful ones like alcoholism or violent overreactions
or obesity. The people are considered at risk and in need of special help
and protection to prevent the predisposition from actualizing.

  Some people succeed in changing away from homosexuality; some try and
fail; some don't try. Thus, at least some instances are capable of
changing.

  Another line of scientific evidence is medicine. Some homosexual
behaviors have significant health threats (in particular, anal sex). The
disease issue, however, is more properly a function of promiscuity rather
than homosexuality per se, except insofar as some of the behaviors may
specifically facilitate disease transmission. On the other hand, high
association of promiscuity and/or bisexuality with homosexuality would fit
in with the suggestion that it is evolutionarily often essentially mistaken
identity, i.e., a willingness to have sex with anyone could potentially
result in more offspring than greater caution.

  Thus, despite all the hype in both directions, it seems likely that there
are external factors, not controllable by the individual, that can
predispose someone to homosexuality. This in no way indicates that it is
morally acceptable, but it does indicate that it's not merely a deliberate
choice to do wrong and that change is very difficult. Homosexuality has the
disadvantages of being relatively easy to qualitatively delineate and of
only appealing to a minority, both of which make it easy targets for
denunciation while tolerating one's own sin.

  I have not seen any credible exegesis that renders the many Biblical
passages (both explicit identification of homosexual behavior as wrong and
the characterization of heterosexual marriage as the standard) compatible
with considering homosexuality morally acceptable, but the fact that many
other behaviors are criticized in the same passages makes the singling out
of homosexuality wrong.

  --
  Dr. David Campbell
  425 Scientific Collections
  University of Alabama
  "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 13 21:19:14 2006