RE: [asa] science and homosexuality

Here is the link to an article critiquing previous studies claiming that
homosexuality is physiological.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html

One study by Simon LeVay determined that a portion of the brain which is
larger in heterosexual men than in women is woman-sized in gay male brains.
The critiquer argues that this could be a result rather than a cause.
However, she also points out that some claims made by the opposition are not
necessarily valid.

Another study by Allen and Gorski found that another portion of the brain
was different in homosexual men than in either straight men or women.

A recent study found that gay men and straight women react to the same
pheromones.

http://www.medicineonline.com/conditions/article.html?articleID=5610&catID=1
2

It is argued that this also could be the effect of homosexuality and not the
cause. I get the impression from reading these 'Christian rebuttal'
articles - which outnumber the valid study articles by far - that there is
emotion rather than scientific open mindedness as a motivation.

And there is this study:
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/00newsreleases/nr_200007/nr_brain000712.html
which finds differences in auditory brain stimuli and index finger length.

"Physiological differences of this sort are highly unlikely to be caused by
differences in experience or upbringing," said McFadden.

It is an easy to read article.

It is difficult to find the core research because of the HECers (Homosexuals
are Evil Christians.) ;)

I don't believe that the evidence is conclusive - but it is statistically
significant. The argument against much of it "that we do not know which is
cause and which is effect" is not conclusive either - 'I don't know' can't
be conclusive.

Even if the answer is that 'they did it to themselves' - well, so do most
unwed pregnant women (so to speak - obviously with help)- do we just abandon
them? One can hope that a pregnant women will never have sex outside of
marriage again - right. It does happen, but the pregnant woman has hope for
sexual fulfillment in marriage. Can we, without hypocrisy, expect a life of
chastity from the entire gay population?

I do believe that the evidence is conclusive that homosexuals are
physiologically different. So, this last question is the crux of the matter:

Can we expect, without hypocrisy, a life of chastity from a significant
portion of our male population?

If we cannot, then how do we charitably deal with the situation in light of
our moral values?

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Clarke Morledge
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:00 AM
To: Debbie Mann
Cc: David Campbell; Asa
Subject: 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.
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 10:00:52 2006