Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate

Book Description

How prevalent is homosexuality? What causes it? Is it a psychopathology? Can it be changed?Questions like these often accompany discussions of homosexual behavior. For answers we naturally look to scientific studies. But what does the scientific research actually show? More important, what place should this research have in shaping the church's response?Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse help us face these issues squarely and honestly. In four central chapters they examine how scientific research has been used within church debates--in particular within Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal contexts. They then survey the most recent and best scientific research and sort out what it actually shows. Next they help us to interpret the research's relevance to the moral debate within the church. In a concluding chapter they make a strong case for a traditional Christian sexual ethic.Church groups considering these complex issues will find helpful discussion questions at the end of each chapter. This book is essential reading for anyone involved in the church's debate over homosexual behavior.

Customer Reviews:

The Authors Bias in the Writing is Very Obvious.......2007-03-19

The subtext of this work could possibly be retitled the "The Misuse of Scientific Research in the Churches Moral Debate". I think the only real value in reading this book is to get an idea of how far removed some Christian commentators are from the realities of life and what it really means to be homosexual in the 21st century.

Early in the work, the authors state their position. Quoting from Chapter 1 page 11 `We believe in being clear about our assumptions and presuppositions, so we confess that we are defending the historic understanding of the church, grounded on the Bibles teaching, that homosexuality is immoral. Let us give away our punch line at the very start: We will show, persuasively we hope, that while science provides us with many interesting and useful perspectives on sexual orientation and behaviour, the best science of this day fails to persuade the thoughtful Christian to change his or her moral stance. Science has nothing to offer that would even remotely constitute persuasive evidence that would compel us to deviate from the historic Christian judgement that full homosexual intimacy, homosexual behaviour is immoral.'

This book is written for a conservative Christian audience who still have not worked out that a homosexual orientation, as such, does not automatically determine a person's morality any more than heterosexuality does. Morality is a choice but sexual orientation isn't. To falsely judge a group within society because they are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite by calling that entire group immoral is not only irresponsible but also in conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.

Chapter 2 is titled `How Prevalent is Homosexuality?' This seems a strange place to start the argument but not unusual. It has probably been some time now since Queer sociologists and commentators have used Kinsey's figure of approximately 10% of people being homosexual in their orientation but by introducing this question first, it serves two purposes for the authors. Firstly, it gives the impression that we have been deceiving people about our real numbers and secondly by reducing the numbers any requests for equality are not as important as we make out. After all, 2-4% of the population - are they all that important one could conclude. The table on pages 42-43 of 11 different studies in this area does not really prove their point but actually demonstrates how difficult it is to get a definitive number. My feeling is that we will never have an accurate figure until all stigma attached to homosexuality within our society is removed. In the meantime people who experience fluidity in their sexual orientation and heterosexuals who have same sex experiences sometimes get thrown into the mix.

When referring to scientific research the authors frequently quote from studies done in the 60's, 70's and mid 80's. Even research from the 1950's is citied. Whilst this research may have been valuable at the time, my impression is that it is now considered dated by most professionals without a bias. Possible causes of homosexuality according to the authors are strong mother/weak father, early sexual experiences with someone of the same sex, sexual abuse and new one for me I hadn't heard of, that the `exotic becomes erotic'. This theory proposes that we eroticise over the gender we are not connected with. So `normal' males will eventually eroticise over girls but homosexual men eroticise over men because they feel distant and unconnected with other males. An interesting theory perhaps but lacks credibility in the light of those who have only known attraction to the same sex from very early childhood.

When dealing with the various biological theories, the authors point to flaws in the research methodology and the exceptions rather than being able to identify what the research is actually saying to us. That is, there are prenatal factors such as genetic and hormonal influences that increase the likelihood, but do not guarantee, a person will be same sex attracted.

I think Chapter 4 `Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology' is the most offensive. To quote from page 94 of that chapter. `The short answer to the question `Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology' is no, if a person were to mean that the answer can be found by a quick look through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorders; Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association. Homosexuality is not listed as a formal mental disorder in the DSM-IV, and hence is not a `mental illness'. But as we will see in this chapter, answering the question `Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology' is much more complicated than simply checking a manual.' The authors go on to expand on research done on the mental health of gay men and lesbians. This is where the writing becomes incredibly biased and using statements like `the hospitalisation rate for homosexuals is 450% higher that the general population'.... `suggesting over 300% increases in incidence of serious personal distress amongst lesbians'...and `the elevated rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide challenge the adaptiveness of homosexuality' reflect the authors very negative impression of gays and lesbians. What is not introduced in this chapter are the possible causes of any mental health issues like rejection by family, societal norms of conformity, religious dissonance and even persecution.

There are large amounts of material from the book that demonstrates it has been written with a strong bias and not relevant to the more informed academic or mental health professional. For example, in the summary of the chapter `Can Homosexuality be Changed?' it says, `the research of sexual orientation is intensely debated today. Most of the research was conducted and published between the 1950's and the 1970'[s, with an average positive outcome of approximately 30%.' As this work was written in 2000 Spitzer's recent conclusion that changes to one's sexual orientation "are probably quite rare, even for highly motivated homosexuals". It has been estimated that reparative therapists have a cure rate of 0.02% which means a failure rate of 99.98%.

In the final chapter `Toward a Christian Sexual Ethic' it says, 'To summarize, the essential claim in the discussions about the prevalence is that the high prevalence of homosexuality , claimed to be 10% or more of the general population, demands revision of our traditional ethic. The best studies, however suggest a prevalence of between 2 and 3%. More importantly, prevalence has no claim on ethic, since Christians commonly believe that some sinful life patterns are very common such as pride while some are rare like bestiality'. And on the following page we read, `Even if the homosexual condition of desiring intimacy and sexual union with a person of the same gender is caused in it's entirety by causal factors outside the personal control of the person, that does not constitute moral affirmation of acting on those desires. If it did, the pedophile who desires sex with children, the alcoholic who desires the pursuit of drunkenness, and the person with Antisocial Personality Disorder who desires the thrill of victimization and pain infliction would all have a equal case for moral approval of their exploits' (my emphasis.) One wonders what the authors solution might be for the `homosexual condition' if we are equated with paedophiles, alcoholics and anti-social behaviour and later put in the same basket with schizophrenia, panic attacks, witchcraft and greed.

As a gay man from a strong religious background, reading through this book, I often found myself asking the question, `Who are you talking about. I'm not sick, I know I certainly didn't choose to be gay, I wasn't sexually abused, my first sexual experiences were with guys because that is the only attraction I had and my homosexuality is not a problem to me'. I have to conclude that the authors are like many people in conservative religious circles who because of their negative view of homosexuality they are locked away in world that conveniently separates them from us and they actually don't know any well adjusted gay or lesbian people personally. The only homosexual people they have contact with are those in their churches who are tormented by the dissonance created by an outdated religious worldview. The rest of us are living normal lives and making a valuable contribution to society.

Anthony Venn-Brown
Author of "A Life of Unlearning - a journey to find the truth"

A failure to deal with science.......2007-01-04

Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse's book Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate will fail to convince anyone that is not already of the same opinion as the authors. With all good intentions the scientific evidence reviewed is such that supports their own view and lacking in that which is contradictory.

Attacks on Kinsey's research are nothing new, but the continued flaws of those attacks should be pointed out. Treating Kinsey as if he were attempting to look more at prevalence than variance is one way in which the authors attempt to discredit the research. Mentioning that his original background was in entomology rather than human sexuality is another. The problem is that these are not flaws in Kinsey's research, rather they are a scientist focusing on one aspect and presuming that more research will be done on other aspects.

The attack on Kinsey's research for going after a variety of sources becomes more glaring when the sources Yarhouse and Jones approve of have such limitations in number. The authors, themselves, make many of the mistakes for which they criticize others. This book is neither balanced nor fair. It ignores the main thrust of scientific research - for example, I could not find one reference to the Journal of Homosexuality - in favor of side groups that have been discredited - such as members of NARTH.

The book looks good with a multitude of footnotes, but fails to provide such normal resources such as a bibliography, list of sources cited and more. It's an attempt to look profound and achieves banality.

Wonderful and Timely.......2003-02-19

This book is a must read for all psychiatry shcools

A well-written, balanced book.......2002-07-22

This book deserves to rank higher on Amazon.com's sales list. It seems very difficult to find a book that deals with this subject fairly, since this subject is so politically charged. But this book does a very good job of laying out the most current scientific research. People who should read it may not because they may assume that it's coming from a traditional religious perspective. Ultimately, it is. But the authors lay the scientific research out fairly and draw rational conclusions from it. It's hard to see how anybody could be offended by this book, no matter what side of the fence they happen to be on.Much of the material overlaps with Thomas Schmidt's "Straight and Narrow" (published five years earlier by the same publisher, Intervarsity Press). But Schmidt's book was more overtly critical of homosexuality, whereas this book is somewhat less personal and more clinical. The authors seem to take some pains not to offend. But the book does show (as Schmidt does) that the media coverage of this subject tends to really oversimplify (and, to a degree, whitewash) a very complex subject.

Thorough discussion of homosexuality, flawed theology.......2001-06-25

Jones and Yarhouse's comprehensive discussion of the science of homosexuality is welcome and long overdue. In particular, the authors touch upon a subject -- ex-gays -- that both liberal and conservative activists have avoided addressing scientifically because the facts reflect poorly on the claims of both sides.

This book makes no claim to be unbiased. The authors do impose a conservative Protestant filter upon their evaluations and commentaries. This results in extensive discussion of "the" (singular) Christian sexual ethic which completely excludes Catholic and liberal or independent Protestant perspectives on sexual ethics. The authors also succumb to caricatures of positions with which they disagree; they periodically stereotype the proponents of alternative ethical frameworks as well as the widely differing perspectives of gay-tolerant Christian and gay-tolerant non-Christian scientists, clergy and civil-rights activists.

Product Description

History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1153 and crucified in 1186 The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic - validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources - to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt - one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.

Customer Reviews:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10

Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.

I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.

Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.

Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.

I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.

This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion

Average customer rating:

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion

Manufacturer: Brill Academic Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Architecture | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

General | Interior Design | Home & Garden | Subjects | Books

General | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Research | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

History | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

Sociology | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | Sports | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1559388935

Book Description

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (RSSSR) publishes reports of innovative studies that pertain empirically or theoretically to the scientific study of religion, including spirituality, regardless of their academic discipline or professional orientation. This volume of RSSSR contains articles on conversion narratives of Jehovah's witnesses, belief in an active Satan, afterlife beliefs, religiosity and parenting and spirituality as coping resource.

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 1994 (Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion)

Average customer rating:

Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 1994 (Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion)
Monty L. Lynn
Manufacturer: Brill Academic Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Architecture | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

General | Interior Design | Home & Garden | Subjects | Books

General | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Research | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

History | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

Sociology | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | Sports | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 1559387629

Book Description

The purpose of this book is to provide an outlet for original research articles examining the role and value of religious and spiritual constructs across the social sciences. The aim of the series is to include an international and interfaith voice to this research dialogue. An effort is made to be interdisciplinary and academically eclectic.

The articles in each volume represent a wide array of perspectives and research projects. Most of the articles report the findings of quantitative or qualitative investigations, but some deal with methodology, theory, or applications of social science studies in the field of religion, and some are applied, demonstrating the relevance of the social sciences to religious organizations and their clergy.

The value of the volume is that it gives to researchers in this area a broad perspective on the issues and methods of religious research across a spectrum of academic disciplines. The aim of the book is to stimulate a creative, integrative dialogue that will enhance interdisciplinary research.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books