in JOURNEY TOGETHER FAITHFULLY
By Merton P. Strommen, PhDI write this critique with regret. I had believed this report would accurately reflect the research information the Task Force has considered. I had expected to find an accurate account of what scientific research has concluded regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, such information is not reflected in the document. Rather, the account of what research has discovered reads as though someone outside the Task Force or staff has written it.
CLAIMING RESEARCH ESTABLISHES INNATE ORIENTATION.
Session Five in the publication Journey Together Faithfully begins with a section entitled, “Scientific Research: Limits and Contributions.” Its first sentence reads: “The idea that people have a certain sexual orientation is a conclusion of modern psychology.”
If by that statement we are being told that psychological studies have now established that homosexuality is caused by a “gay “gene and that one is born homosexual—it is a false statement. Science has not established that point. On the contrary, the studies favor what is reported in the textbook for psychoanalysts published last year. The book entitled, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice, says the following: “At clinical conferences one often hears discussants commenting that homosexuality is genetic and therefore that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true.” (Friedman & Downey,2002,p.39)
This idea of homosexuality being a “given” appears in many places in the publication. It reads as though the author wishes to convince all readers that homosexuality is a “fixed given” – something over which a person has no more control than being left handed. On Page 19 we read: “The ELCA recognizes that for some people homosexual orientation is a given and not in itself blameworthy.” True, it is not blameworthy; it is only the behavior that is blameworthy. But it is not true that science has now established homosexuality as a “given.” Most psychologists, including the American Psychological Association, view homosexuality as the result of various factors – social, familial, environmental – that it is developmental.
On page 22 we read: “… the Bible speaks to our present understanding of homosexuality as a fixed orientation rather than a perverse choice.” True, it is not in most cases the result of a perverse choice, but it is not true that it is a fixed orientation. Listen to what Simon LeVay, a gay researcher, who authored the study of brain structure differences between gay and straight men said about immutability:
“There are probably very few people who have not felt, at some time or other, some sexual attraction to both men and women. A person’s sexual orientation is not necessarily a fixed, life-long attribute. Sexual orientation can change. For example, a woman may be predominately attracted to men for many years, and perhaps have a happy marriage and children during that time, and then become increasingly aware of same-sex attraction in her thirties, forties, or later. This does not mean that she was concealing or repressing her homosexuality during that early period. To argue that she was really homosexual all the time would be to change the definition of sexual orientation into something murky and inaccessible.” (Simon LeVay and Elizabeth Nomas. City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian community in America. 1999, p.5)
We bump into the document’s claim again on page 29 in the phrase: “. . . even if claims of modern research that certain people have a virtually innate homosexual orientation were true.” Modern psychology has not established homosexuality as something that is “virtually innate.” What the writer does not realize is that the existence of biological factors in causation of human traits, even genetically mediated ones, does not mean the trait is unchangeable or inevitable. There are numerous former homosexuals who experience life now as straight. And on the other side of the spectrum, LeVays’s description above is also accurate about former heterosexuals who now live as gays and lesbians.
This idea that homosexuality is a “given” for some people appears throughout the document (note: pages 30, 31,33). The conviction of the writer becomes obvious on page 33. “We know that homosexual orientation is a given for some people.” This is a repeated refrain throughout the document as though it has been established by scientific research. As a psychologist I object to this statement of fact. It totally ignores the research I have reported in my book, The Church and Homosexuality. It is an hypothesis that many men and women have attempted to establish without success and which many theologians and pastors have adopted on the basis of anecdotal information
THE CHILDREN OF LESBIGAY FAMILIES.
The document seems to to establish as fact that children raised in same-sex families show no significant development related to the sexual orientation of their parents. Here is one of its statements. (Page 31) ”Some would claim that there is considerable social research to show that gay and lesbian people are quite capable of stable, faithful, and loving relationships and, where there are children, the children display no adverse effects.”
It is true that some studies conducted several years ago (based on small samples averaging 60 children) did announce such results. But these studies have now been shown to be faulty. I presented a paper to the Task Force in April calling attention to the book published in 2001, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting. The authors demonstrate that the forty-nine studies on same-sex parenting (some of which are much quoted) are so flawed that no generalization can reliably be made based on their studies.
A corrective to the widespread acceptance of these studies came in 2001 in a provocative article published in the American Sociological Review, April, 2001. Its title asks: “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The authors, two sociologists at the University of California, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, report that statistical evidence found in eighteen of the best studies, shows that parental orientation is positively associated with the probability their children will attain a similar orientation. They add, theory and common sense support such a view. Children raised in religious homes tend to be religious and children raised in homes where parents smoke are likely to smoke. The authors contend that children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships. (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001, p.178)
(See my article “Use and Abuse of Research” submitted to the Sexuality Task Force and placed on the Website: www.churchmoraldebate.com.
FURTHER OBSCURATION
The document leans again to favor the gay belief system in its discussion of the percent of population that is gay or lesbian. On Page 28 we read: “There is some disagreement among researchers on how prevalent this orientation is in the population. Estimates range from two to ten percent.” It should be noted that gays want people to think they represent 10 percent of the population.
True, Kinsey came out in his report that the incidence was 10 percent, but he did not use a random sample, but rather a highly selected group. His figure has been disallowed as credible for a number of years. In my book I call attention to three major studies. The one by the University of Chicago is the one and only truly scientific survey carried out in the United States. It is the basic reference for researchers in our country. This study fixes the percentage at 2.8 for homosexuals and 1.4 for lesbians. Two larger studies, a British interview of 18,876 and a French study of 20,055 people, both identified 1.1 percent of the population as having had a same-sex experience “in the past year.” There is no reason to say that researchers give estimates up to 10 percent. The only time 10% is used is when referring to large cities (e.g. San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Minneapolis).
I am left with no other conclusion than that the point of view of the writers of this document has caused them to ignore certain research information that has been available to them. They have chosen to give the impression that their conclusions (which favor a gay belief system) are research based.
Thus this study document fails to provide two points of view regarding the findings of research. Rather, what has been written reinforces the belief system of those favoring the ordination of non-celibate gays and the blessing of same-sex marriages.
Consider also the Background Essay on Biblical Texts, where Hultgren and Taylor use social science type conclusions to establish their theological argument. What they conclude provides encouragement for those who are ready to disallow the imperative of scripture.HULTGREN-TAYLOR AS SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
In their Background Essay on Biblical Text :for Journey Together Faithfully, they present a careful review of the Biblical texts related to the subject of homosexuality. Then they become social scientists by averring or suggesting that homosexual behavior in Paul’s time was not the same as today. They venture that male coupling today is a permanent, committed and loving relationship that differs from homosexual behavior in Paul’s day. On the basis of this observation they question, “whether there is any direct correlation between what Paul knows, envisions, or imagines as same-gender sexual behavior within this topos and what the church is facing in our time (permanent, committed, and loving relationships between persons of the same gender).” This observation becomes a pivotal statement in their argument with clear implications. In effect they are saying that the Biblical witness regarding homosexuality does not apply to the issue before the ELCA today. Therefore, scripture should not be regarded as the determinative authority.
When these two authors assume the role of social scientists and make statements that compare two periods in history, they are obligated to provide documentation. It is justifiable to ask them: How do you know what Paul understood about homosexual behavior in his time? What evidence do you have that enables you to compare homosexual practices at the time of Paul with homosexual practices today? We know from John Boswell’s review of documents from that period of history that he estimates half the men in cities such as Rome, Sparta, Athens, etc were involved in same sex behavior.
Hundreds of studies currently available provide a fair indication of homosexual behavior today. From these one can conclude that promiscuity is common for homosexuals and that only a small percentage of male partnerships are permanent. Three major studies attest to this fact. One can also conclude from current writings that most gay partnerships do not reflect a“committed, loving relationship.” Gay and lesbian leaders themselves are conscious of the large percentage of partnerships that end up in domestic violence – far more than the 11% of households reporting violence against women. (Consult the book written by two men who were consultants to Gay and Lesbian organizations, David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them.) The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that male coupling today does not meet the stereotype of permanent, committed, and loving relationships. In all probability, there were as many loving and committed same-sex relationships in the time of the Apostle Paul as exist today.
These two study documents encourage the idea that one is born with a fixed homosexual orientation, that it is the equivalent of a heterosexual orientation, and that homosexuality today is radically different from what Paul forbids in Romans 1.