Thoughts on homosexuality
Last week there was a USA Today opinion piece floating around the internet from a Baptist minister talking about homosexuality. He was suggesting that if science were to prove that homosexuality was not a choice, then Christians who oppose it might lose their moral credibility. It was an interesting article and probably got the attention it did because it was a baptist minister that wrote it, as opposed to an episcopalian or a methodist.
But the fact is that science hasn’t “proven” that homosexuality isn’t a choice, at least to the satisfaction of social conservatives. So at this point it is still a fairly theoretical discussion. I have a couple of thoughts on the question of scientific proof.
We used to go to church with a fellow United Methodist that is a reproductive biologist. From what I hear, he’s one of the top reproductive biologists in the country (and the world). He’s a very smart guy who spends his time getting monkeys pregnant (and some other stuff too). We were having an adult education class on homosexuality and the church. He argued that from a scientific perspective, he’s very confident that homosexuality is biological in origin. There is some fairly groundbreaking research (also from Oregon) about homosexuality in sheep that he feels makes a very good case for a genetic role in homosexuality. But don’t be thinking that’s he some crazy liberal hippie - he’s a fairly middle-of-the-road type of guy.
The point he made is this: If we accept that homosexuality is not a choice, and the research to this point would seem to suggest that this is the case, the question then becomes whether this is a behavior that we as a church and a society wish to accept and/or promote. There are a lot of other conditions/behaviors that have genetic and/or biological causes that we’ve decided are not in the interest of society and that we should try to correct.
He also presented a more specific way of looking at the issue. As a reproductive biologist, his research is dedicated to helping treat infertility and high-risk pregnancies. So he wonders about the wisdom of supporting a behavior that limits human ability to reproduce. If the biological imperative of species is to reproduce, should we support ANY behavior that limits reproductive possibility?
That then opens up all sorts of questions like environmental concerns, the Biblical imperative for reproduction, etc. Ultimately his questions are just as troubling as the ones we have if we don’t accept homosexuality as being not a choice. Now we start asking if we should try to “fix” gays and lesbians? But if they truly are born that way, couldn’t that be seen as an expression of God’s love and acceptance of them?
While I think it is obvious that there are no easy answers, we also need to watch out for the false promise of easy answers. Some sort of universally accepted scientific research isn’t going to solve the problem - it will just present a whole new set of troubling questions.
I’ll follow up with my other thought in a new post.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Thanks for the quality post(I found you via the Methoblog site).
I’m not unfamiliar with a lot of the “research” into a biological basis of homosexuality. I don’t think most scientist, your friend included, would actually jump to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetic. The question that elicits that answer is very vague to begin with. The evidence, quite apart from the question, is only tentative at best. I prefer that someone considering the subject step back and ask them self “so what? there seems to be a strong correlation between a certain genetic component and…”.
Homosexuality as a behavior makes the question much clearer. Homosexuality as a preset “orientation” of the personality is not so clear. If one looks at behavior(a much more scientific and measurable concept) then the genetics question concerning homosexuality most closely mirrors that of alcoholism. Most scientist have abandoned search for the “alcoholism” gene(s) as an ill-conceived quest. Why? At best any genetic components that have an effect on behavior of any kind are not deterministic, only probabilistic. Conditioning and self-imposed construction are also key influences in developing the condition called “alcoholism”.
The indistinct use of the term homosexuality in the context of science and genetics is easily abused to mislead those who haven’t thought critically about it into believing the behavior is biologically based and as such is a strong natural desire. The follow-on conjecture is that strong natural desires should never be repressed by the individual or society. But of course one only need offer the cannibalistic sociopath as a perfect counter example. Science, after all, hasn’t solved that riddle either.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
I would agree with you in that my friend wouldn’t say absolutely that homosexuality is genetic, but rather (in his mind) there is mounting evidence that it is more than just a choice.
I think you’re right in that the question becomes whether the expression of those natural desires is something society and the church ought to condone.
I guess my point (not to argue with you, because you obviously get it) is that science won’t bail us out of this discussion.
Thanks for the comment.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 am
pre teen pageant gown