Homosexuality & Science

1. Homosexuality & Science

2. 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of revising biblical norms on human sexuality implicitly or explicitly argue that present scientific understanding has superseded the teachings of Scripture in this area • This line of reasoning typically follows the rationale: “What is natural” = “What is morally permissible” • “If it is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)

3. 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)

4. Current Essentialist Arguments • Prevalence • The high prevalence of Homosexuality within the population suggests that homosexuality is a natural condition meant by God • Genetic Etiology • Homosexual orientation is genetically determined, suggesting that it is a natural condition meant by God • Non-Pathological • 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

5. The Prevalence of Homosexuality

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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 self-identification has approached Kinsey’s percentage of incidence

9. 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

10. 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.

11. Genetic Studies of Homosexuality

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 . . .

19. 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)

20. The Primates’ Statementof October 16, 2003

21. 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

22. 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.”

23. 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.

24. 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.”

25. 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).”

26. 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.

27. 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.”