Transcript Christianity and Homosexuality, Class Three Notes

Homosexuality & Science
The Use of Science in Questions of
Human Sexuality


Often, proponents of revising biblical norms on
human sexuality implicitly or explicitly argue that
present scientific understanding has superseded the
teachings of Scripture in this area
This line of reasoning typically follows the rationale:
“What is natural” = “What is morally permissible”

“If it is possible to determine that homosexual orientation is
caused exclusively by physical factors, such as genetic
makeup, then this might suggest that homosexuality is neither
sin nor a sickness”—Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the
General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church (1991)
Problems with the
Essentialist Argument


From a Christian standpoint, the direct move from “what is” to
“what ought” is highly problematic, given the Christian belief in
the fallen condition of humanity
What seems “natural” to some or even many, Christianity (and
Western Society, in most cases) has judged to be immoral:





The urge to kill
The urge to lie
The urge to steal
The urge to be sexually promiscuous
Thus, the essentialist position jettisons Christian moral reflection
in favor of science—a field that is not inherently equipped to
deal with ethical questions (scientists themselves rely on external
value systems, not ones directly emerging from their studies)
Current Essentialist Arguments

Prevalence


Genetic Etiology


Homosexual orientation is genetically determined, suggesting that it is a
natural condition meant by God
Non-Pathological


The high prevalence of Homosexuality within the population suggests
that homosexuality is a natural condition meant by God
Homosexual orientation does not spring from unmet emotional needs or
difficulties in social adjustment—nor does it result in the same—
therefore it is God-intended
Immutability

Homosexual orientation is fixed, suggesting it is a gift from God, not
something to be denied or changed
The Prevalence of
Homosexuality
The Essentialist Position

“Research from several sectors indicates that at least 10
percent of the American population or approximately
22 million persons are predominately gay or lesbian”—
Keeping Body and Soul Together (Report to the Presbyterian Church, 1991
[Reacting to one of the “Myths to be Dispelled” (viz, the low prevalence of
homosexuality)]).

“If the best scientific data seems to put the figure of
gay and lesbian people in the world at 10% of the
population . . . Then you and I need to realize that 10%
is such a large percentage that it could hardly be
accidental”—Bp. J. S. Spong (Feb 1992 symposium at VTS)
The Origin of the 10% Figure



In his 1948 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,
Alfred Kinsey reported that 10% of the men in his
study of 5,300 subjects had only homosexual
experiences for any three-year period between ages
sixteen and fifty-five.
4% had sex only with men from adolescence onward
Kinsey did not examine lesbian behavior, but estimated
that 13% of women had at least one lesbian encounter
Critique of Kinsey’s Study

Non-Randomized Sampling




Kinsey did not randomly choose subjects, but recruited them
directly from prisons, reformed schools, gay bars and college
fraternities and sororities
Of Kinsey’s subjects, 25% were from an inmate population;
an additional 26% of the total sample consisted of convicted
sex offenders (male prostitutes, pimps, etc.)
The sexual practices of these individuals obviously cannot be
generalized to the larger population
Discordance with other Studies

No randomized study of homosexual behavior or selfidentification has approached Kinsey’s percentage of
incidence
The National Health and
Social Life Survey




Published in 1994, this scientific survey was commissioned by
the US Congress in response to the AIDS epidemic
It randomly sampled 3,432 respondents on various questions of
sexuality, using sociologically accepted methodology
It is the current “gold standard” in research on human sexuality
in the US
Findings:

Males



2.8% identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual
2% reported having sex with a man in the past year
Females


1.4% identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual
2% reported having sex with a woman in the past year
No matter how we define homosexuality, we come up with
small percentages of people who are currently gay or lesbian.
These numbers, in fact, may sound astonishingly low, especially
to residents of cities like New York or San Francisco, where
there are large gay and lesbian communities. But, we found, gays
and lesbians are not evenly distributed across the country. They
tend to live in large cities and to avoid or leave small towns and
rural areas . . .
More than 9 percent of men in the nation’s twelve larges cities
identify themselves as gay. But just 3 or 4 percent of men living
in the suburbs of these cities or in most of the larger cities of
the nation say they are gay and about 1 percent of men in rural
areas identify themselves as gay.—Sex in America, p. 177.
Genetic Studies of
Homosexuality
The Essentialist Position

“There is an increasing amount of evidence that, in fact, many
gay people are born homosexual or lesbian and have nothing to
say about it, as is evidenced by a new study that indicates there is
a high incidence in twins of one being gay. If medical science
proves that our sexuality is a given, at least in most cases, which I
believe it is doing, then how does that effect our theology? I
believe that wherever truth is there is God. God is truth. Jesus
said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." (John 14:6) "I have
come into the world to be a witness to the truth?" (John 18:38)
If someone is born gay then we need to make room for full
acceptance in our theology and in our church life.”—The Rev. Dr.
Charles R. Colwell, “The Gay Issue,” preached at St. Barnabas Episcopal Church,
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY, Sep 14, 2003
Twin Studies

Identical Twins
Contain the same genetic material
 Are studied to determine what influence genetic
code has upon specific behaviors
 Ideally, twins separated at birth are the best subjects,
as they experience different environments
 When these are lacking, the most reliable studies are
studies of Twin Registries, as these contain less
possibility for recruitment bias

Twin Studies on Homosexuality

Separated Twins

There is only one study of separated identical twins
(Eckert et al. 1986), but its sample was very selective
and very small (female n=8, male n=4)
“That the twins are highly selected cannot be doubted;
they are not representative of twins or homosexuals. . . .
Nevertheless, study of them has yielded clues which
warrant description.”
 Results



50% correlation for males
0% correlation for females
Twin Studies on Homosexuality
(cont’d)

Non-Separated Twin Studies

The Australian Twin Registry Study (Bailey et al.
2000)
Researchers sent questionnaires to over 4,000 twins in the
Australian Twin Bank
 Results for homosexuality correlations:



38% correlation for monozygotic male twins
30% correlation for monozygotic female twins
Interpreting the Twin Study

The role of Genetics in Homosexuality
A genetically determined correlation would be 100%
 The Australian study suggests a weak genetic influence
 Conversely, the study suggests that environmental
factors play the larger role


This is particularly suggested by the fact that twins are
raised similarly, which may have further magnified the
correlations
Interpreting the Twin Study
(cont’d)

What are the inherited genetic traits in
homosexuality?
This is unknown, but could encompass wide variety
of possibilities
 Example: Traits of Professional Basketball Players

Tallness
 Sharpness of eye
 Manual dexterity
 General athleticism


While possession of these traits might facilitate
becoming a professional basketball player, it does
not genetically program or force one to do so
Recent studies postulate biologic factors [genetic,
hormonal] as the primary basis for sexual orientation.
However, there is no evidence at present to
substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is not
evidence to support any singular psychological
explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate
biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic
explanations for sexual orientation may derive more
from dissatisfaction with the current status of
psycholosocial explanations than from a substantiating
body of experimental data. Critical review shows the
evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking . . .
In an alternative model, temperamental and personality
traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the
individual’s sexuality emerges. Because such traits may
be heritable or developmentally influenced by
hormones, the model predicts an apparent non-zero
heritability for homosexuality without requiring that
either genes or hormones directly influence sexual
orientation per se. —Byne et al. “Human Sexual Orientation: The
Biological Theories Reappraised” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50:3 (1993),
239 (A comprehensive review of 135 studies, prior reviews, academic
summaries and books on the biological etiology of homosexuality by senior
researchers from Columbia University)
The Primates’ Statement
of October 16, 2003
Background on the Meeting


Near the conclusion of the 74th General
Convention, the Archbishop of Canterbury
summoned the 38 Primates of the Anglican
Communion to Lambeth for an Extraordinary
Meeting to be held on Oct 15-16, 2003
The Primates met in private discussions and
produced a public statement that was signed by
all present
Major Points of the Statement

Affirmed the Authority of Scripture

The Primates reaffirmed the central authority of
Scripture in defining the theological and moral
teachings of the Church:

“we re-affirm our common understanding of the
centrality and authority of Scripture in determining the
basis of our faith.”
Major Points (cont’d)

Reaffirmed the Anglican Teaching on Human Sexuality



While recognizing “a legitimate diversity of interpretation” of Scripture
in various matters across the Communion, the Primates rebuffed notions
that the actions in question have overturned the Communion’s teachings
on human sexuality:
“We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican
Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on issues of
human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of
the Communion as its present position on these issues . . . Therefore, as a
body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster
and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of provinces
to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to alter
unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. They
do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in
our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means
that none has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as
if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion.”
The “short-circuited process” mentioned in the statement refers to the
Communion’s ongoing study of questions concerning human sexuality.
Major Points (cont’d)

Expressed Concern over Dissenting Minorities

The Primates called for dioceses “to make adequate
provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting
minorities within their own area of pastoral care in
consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on
behalf of the Primates.”
Major Points (cont’d)


Warned of the Schismatic Nature of the Contemplated
Consecration of Canon Robinson:
“If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached
a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican
Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the
Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the
ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of
the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider
themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church
(USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest
level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues
as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can
remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break
communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).”
Major Points (cont’d)

Called for a Committee on Church Discipline
The Primates requested that the Archbishop of
Canterbury “establish a commission to consider his
own role in maintaining communion within and
between provinces when grave difficulties arise.”
 This commission is to report back to the Primates in
one year.

Major Points of the Statement
(cont’d)

This refers to Resolution IV.13 of the 1998 Lambeth
Convention, which invited the Archbishop of
Canterbury to create a commission to recommend
“the means by which, it would be appropriate for
him to exercise an extra-ordinary ministry of episcope
(pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with
regard to the internal affairs of a Province other
than his own for the sake of maintaining
communion within the said Province and between
the said Province and the rest of the Anglican
Communion.”