Re: [asa] science and homosexuality

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Debbie Mann wrote:

> 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.

Debbie,

I am not sure that by saying "most cases of homosexuality appear to be
physiological" carries the same force as suggesting that the evidence is
"conclusive" regarding the causes of homosexuality. Should we not be a
little more cautious?

If the evidence is indeed conclusive that there is some sort of genetic
cause of homosexuality, then it is quite clear that the bulk of
evangelical Christianity is not aware of it. Jim Dobson's Focus on the
Family apparently does not know about it:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm

The popular (and best, in my opinion) criticism from a conservative
evangelical point of view, Thomas Schmidt's _Straight and Narrow:
Compassion and Clairty in the Homosexuality Debate_, notes that the
research in this area is still in its infancy and primarily anecdotal.
Schmidt wrote in 1995, but I am not aware of any enormous strides in
research during the last eleven years (have I missed something?). Even
Scanzoni and Mollenkott in their revisionist popular work, _Is the
Homosexual My Neighbor?_, agrees that there is a critical need for more
research in this area.

Has someone read Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, _Homosexuality: The Use
of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate_? I hope to soon, but
I've found a helpful review here:

http://www.narth.com/docs/sciencetellus.html

Jones and Yarhouse are skeptical of any conclusive interpretations of the
current data. Nevertheless, they would argue that even if there were
conclusive evidence for something like a "gay gene" that this would not
necessarily require an abandonment of the traditional sexual ethic.

However, I do not find Jones' and Yarhouse's modest appropriation of
science to be a dominant feature of either side of the debate. There is a
lot of rhetoric from conservative evangelical circles about the "lie" of
scientists saying that some people are born gay or lesbian. It is very
close to the rhetoric about the "lie" of an old-earth or evolution. On
the other side, I hear many argue that they look forward to the day when
science finally "proves" that homosexuality is a genetic condition and not
a moral issue. That's just an invitation to abuse science from the other
extreme.

So, to what extent can we in ASA sift out the wheat from the chaff to get
at the real lie and truth of the matter? Are there any plans to cover the
issue in depth in PSCF?

Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Network Engineer
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 14 01:00:17 2006