Re: [asa] science and homosexuality

----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] science and homosexuality

> Quoting George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>:
..........
> Regarding the proposed symmetry between hetero- and homosexual
temptations, I
> understand completely the "essence" of what Gordon states so well. If
> the
> outcome of these debates is to be outright affirmation of orientation (&
> all
> the fulfillments of said desires), then maybe I can get in line next.
............................................

Human beings have basic sexual drives that can't be turned off by fiat.
(Cf. Mt.19:11-12.) That is why the 16th century reformers rejected the
requirement of clerical celibacy. My only point was that marriage provides
a way for those drives to be expressed fully, while no corresponding way
exists for homosexuals.

If you've read earlier posts of mine on these issues you will have seen that
I am not in favor of "outright affirmation of orientation (& all the
fulfillments of said desires)". I do not think that homosexual orientation
& its expression represents God's ultimate intention for humanity. But some
people do have such an orientation. _Why_ they do isn't known at present
but that doesn't change the fact that they do. & since that's the case, the
church needs to ask what the best way is to help Christians with such an
orientation to deal with it.

Is there a corresponding rationale for promiscuity? I don't think there is
in the same way. That is not to say that temptations for married people may
not be very strong. & on a basic biological level promiscuous behavior by
males of course is favored by natural selection. But the basic physical
drive simply to "have sex" doesn't require multiple partners.

Actually an issue that needs more study & open discussion is male homosexual
promiscuity. Churches talk about recognizing "committed" or "monogamous"
same-sex unions, but the fact that blatant promiscuity seems to be an
important feature of male homosexual culture needs to be confronted so that
we can know how realistic the expectation of "monogamy" for male homosexuals
is. Here I am going entirely on anecdotal, though widespread, evidence. We
need some real data.
(& while it can be argued that natural selection favors heterosexual
promiscuity, at least for males, no corresponding argument can be made for
homosexual promiscuity.)

If the church is clear about recognizing same sex unions as ways of dealing
with a less than ideal condition & a means of pastoral care rather than as a
"right" then it will not feel impelled to give its blessing to every
conceivable expression of sexuality. E.g., it's now common for people
arguing for acceptance of "sexual minorities" to bundle some of them as
GLBT - "gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered." But if a person claims to
bisexual & demands the right to have unions with both a male & female
recognized, the church should simply say "No. Make your choice."

There's a lot more to be said but I resist the temptation to comment on
other aspects. The column that I write for _Lutheran Partners_ on issues of
science and technology in ministry was devoted to this in the Jan/Feb 2004
issue. Unfortunately that was just the issue _before_ they started making
the column available online, but I'll be glad to send a copy of "Science and
Sexuality" to anyone who's interested.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 15 16:04:11 2006