Re: [asa] science and homosexuality

Debbie's and David's comments set me thinking on this issue, which is one
I've not resolved myself, but I'll add my thoughts, hopefully in not too
random an order

Debbie commented that anal sex can stimulate pleasurable sensations by the
pressure applied to the prostate gland. However, I don't think this can be
applied as an argument to say that homosexuality is therefore a
physiological condition, which I believe is what Debbie is arguing, I
think. I daresay the same pleasurable sensations could be felt by anyone,
except that most "straight" people feel a sense of revulsion and disgust at
the thought of anal sex. I know that I do, but then I also recall that when
I was little and asked my Mum where babies came from, I was horrified and
disgusted when I was told what Dad used to put the "baby seeds" in Mum's
tummy. I was told it was called sexual intercourse, and that it was a very
beautiful thing, but I still wasn't convinced, and when, a little while
later, my Mum and Dad said they expected me to get married and give them a
grandson and a granddaughter, I exclaimed "You mean you expect me to go
through the ordeal of sexual intercourse TWICE?????????"

The point behind this is that there are bound to be a variety of ways we all
discover sexual feelings. It is necessary for the survival of the species
that nature has wired us up this way - we don't discover sexual feelings
first by having sexual relations with someone of the opposite gender. If it
were that way, the species wouldn't survive, clearly, when the first
reaction is "EEEW! I don't want to do THAT!" So we're wired up so that
there are many ways we can get sexual feelings, so that it is inevitable
that we stumble upon such pleasurable feelings, usually completely by
accident and want more.

As a result of this, it's not surprising that methods of sexual
gratification that might be judged "abnormal" or "unnatural" might occur,
and this is where moral guidance becomes necessary. An extreme example of
this is in the sexual abuse of children, a topic that comes up all too often
in my duties as a Samaritan volunteer. In some cases, the abuse is violent,
and the victim is traumatised with the memory of pain.

But quite often what happens, particularly if the abuse starts very early
(it's not uncommon for it to start as early as age 3), that the child goes
along with it, not knowing any differently - after all you trust your
parents, and the child can even derive pleasure from the acts performed,
because we're wired for pleasure. The fall-out of this is, of course,
absolutely catastrophic in later life. Eventually, the victim gets to
realise that what went on was very, very wrong, and then will become
overwhelmed with feelings of shame and guilt that they went along with,
colluded in, and even enjoyed something that was horrifically wrong. This
then leads to depression, total loss of self-esteem, a sense of being
"dirty", and frequently suicidal thoughts.

Now does this have bearing on whether or not homosexuality is a
physiological condition, as Debbie has stated? I think it does - I would
say it's not a physiological condition - but something perhaps that any of
us could be, given the circumstances, because of the way we're all wired up
- just as a child being sexually used by an adult might actually enjoy what
was going on till they got to know better. It doesn't mean that there's a
physiological abnormal "condition" that the child has - just that they were
treated irresponsibly when they didn't know any better. [ I have to add that
one of the things that tests my Christian charity to extremes is the thought
of child sex abusers, when I hear first hand the terrible suffering they are
responsible for - but it is often the case that child sex abusers were
themselves abused as children].

But then there is the other question - is it (Homosexuality) something that
we "choose" to be? I guess the Conservative Evangelical Christian position
might be that this is so, in order that it can be understood to be a "sin".
Another post stated that homosexuals don't "choose" to be so. I'm sure
that's right, but it doesn't necessarily prove that it's physiological -
that you're born that way. Perhaps I can give a parallel example of a
friend of mine, who believes she is "Electrically Sensitive". The condition
developed during a period of clinical depression, and an "alternative"
doctor told her she might be electrically sensitive after a ringing
developed in her ears after he examined her with some quack device that
supposedly scanned your brain with microwaves and deduced problems in other
parts of your body such as the liver and pancreas. After that, she read up
on the web about electrical sensitivity, and found that people who have this
condition are also sensitive to computer monitors, TV screens, electronics
in cars, loudspeakers, and mains electricity. Sure enough, she soon found
that she also was affected by all these things. Now, it's clear to me that
she didn't "choose" to be like this. She HAS to switch off the mains
electricity, or else she doesn't sleep, and she believes it directly
interacts with her immune system, and that it's a physiological problem
Virtually the entire medical profession does not accept that this is a
physiological condition, but it's psychological, and treatable with
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Electrosensitive people are outraged at the
suggestion that they can be treated by CBT, because they believe they have a
physical condition, and not a psychological one.

But just as my friend didn't choose to be electrically sensitive, I don't
believe that gay people choose to be gay. But that is not to say that it
isn't a psychological condition that it's hard to get out of. The Wikipedia
article on Homosexuality states that maybe there isn't a hard classication
of Gay/Straight, but perhaps we're all Bisexual to an extent - a continuous
spectrum, rather than a hard classification. While I don't regard Wikipedia
as a reliable source (having looked at a few items where I am an expert,
I've often found misleading statements, and downright factual errors), I do
think they have a point in this case, and perhaps we all ought to be a bit
more honest about this. In my present state, I couldn't imagine that being
subjected to anal sex could ever be pleasurable, yet Debbie's comment about
the prostate gland etc forces me as a dispassionate scientist to admit that
maybe it could be pleasurable for anyone. I'm guessing that the nerve
endings in the prostate gland are wired up to the same pleasure centres in
the brain as those in other erogenous zones. As a thought experiment,
suppose, in my current state (horror and disgust at the idea of anal sex), I
was placed in a futuristic society were babies were born in test-tubes
(Brave New World style), and the accepted idea of "correct" sexual behaviour
was what we call "gay sex". In such a society, it's not beyond the bounds
of possibility that I could be corrected for my desire for the opposite sex
by Cognitive Behavoural Therapy, and end up conforming to the accepted
norm. In fact, this very idea was explored in an episode of "Star Trek the
Next Generation", when Riker falls for a member of an androgynous race who
has the "psychological disorder" of preferring a gender, and declaring that
they ARE female. In the end, the person concerned is "cured" by being given
psychological therapy, and able to live a happy life conforming in sexual
habits. Naturally, Riker (and the viewer) is outraged by what has happened,
but the message is ambiguous. Was it psychological, or physical? In the
episode, it is made clear that the "treatment" given is ALWAYS successful,
and that the condition of "preferring a gender" for an androgynous person,
is a psychological one.

So what are we to say as Christians, on this subject? What I think at the
moment is that we don't choose to be gay or straight - it happens beyond our
control, just like electrosensitivity is beyond my friend's control, being
sexually abused as a child is beyond one's control. So I don't think you
"choose" to be gay or straight, but most people end up believing they are
one or the other, because the issue is such a hot potato.

But that leaves the issue of moral guidance. I don't think anyone here
would disagree with the statement that to have sexual relations with a child
is incredibly immoral, because of the damage it causes to the victims. But
then we have these awkward verses in the Bible that are pretty harsh on
homosexual behaviour. Is this moral guidance or not?

... not sure if I'm more or less confused after writing this ... hopefully
some food for thought here anyway.

Iain.

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 15:06:53 2006