Thinking Deeper: Part 3

Homosexuality is a significant issue in the contemporary world, as indicated by the numerous debates for and against it. Researchers have taken an interest in the matter and are keen to give insights and their perceptions of its acceptance in society. Christians are against homosexuality as informed by their biblical teachings, which they believe are straightforward on the matter. On the other hand, scientists have researched the causes, prevalence, and possibility for change regarding homosexual orientation. To gain a comprehensive view of human sexuality, one must critically consider the current scientific findings and biblical teachings as they offer complementary information. Using biblical insights on sex, marriage, and homosexuality helps comprehend Staunton and Myer, two researchers addressing the controversy between religion and science on homosexuality, claims and conclusions on homosexuality. Therefore, Myers and Staunton have different conclusions regarding homosexuality in their examples of how to approach a contentious issue in light of science and biblical teachings because of their differing core values and biblical interpretations.

Staunton’s Integration view

The conflict between science and the church regarding historic sexual ethics has existed for an extended period. As an integrationist, Staunton considers the Bible and Christian teachings as a basis for comprehending human sexuality, and that science enriches its contents through valuable information on human sexuality. Christian scriptures are distinct about human sexuality. In Genesis 1-2, God created Adam and Eve, male and female, and declared them good as they were created in His image and likeness (The Holy Bible, 1986). In Genesis 2:15-24, He finds man insufficient without female company despite living in an ideal environment and having a perfect relationship with Him (The Holy Bible, 1986). Consequently, the Bible depicts that human beings are made to have a relationship with the opposite gender, and God ordains reproduction in a marriage. Although human beings’ sexuality was ideal, human rebellion skewed it; hence God began redeeming human sexuality through setting rules for human sexual conduct and the relationship human beings can have with Him as a result of Christ dying to redeem humanity (Johnson, 2010). Therefore, human beings are capable of living their sexual lives per God’s will.

Although science has enriched the human comprehension of sexuality, its findings on homosexuality and sexual orientation are often misapplied and poorly interpreted against theology. Staunton claims he has found minimal evidence of scientific findings refuting Christian teachings on homosexuality (Johnson, 2010). As a result, he focuses on the cause of homosexuality in his claims. According to Staunton, the Bible does not forbid homosexuality; rather, it forbids homosexual practices, which are willingly performed (The Holy Bible, 1986). Christian ethics solely concentrates on how individuals behave in response to God's moral laws, notwithstanding the evidence suggesting that humans may acquire desires unintentionally (Ellul & Rollison, 2021). Additionally, although people believe homosexual orientation is genetic, numerous studies have inconclusive results (Johnson, 2010). Staunton delves into several studies that determined how genetic homosexual orientation is to alleviate this misinterpretation based on the media’s focus on a study with erred results (Johnson, 2010). Staunton then claims that although biology impacts one’s sexual orientation, several other factors such as family and experience do too. Evidently, there are misinterpretations regarding the causation of homosexual orientation.

Unfortunately, there are misinterpretations about the possibility for change regarding homosexual orientation, often presented as controversial to the Christian sexual ethic. According to Christians, scripture prohibits homosexual intercourse and claims that some who engaged in it were freed from their bondage (Bardon, 2018). Nonetheless, this passage is unclear whether these individuals became celibate or heterosexual. In either case, their actions pleased God, indicating that God only requires eschewing sexual immorality (The Holy Bible, 1986). Scientific study has also shown that sometimes homosexuals become heterosexual through religious interventions and psychotherapy (Jones et al., 2021). Through his claims, Staunton has a strong inclination toward addressing the ethical question of whether one should do the things one wants (Johnson, 2010). He concludes that sexuality is God’s gift; hence He outlines rules for moral sexual conduct, and that science has not seriously challenged this ethic as is commonly believed.

Myer’s level of explanation view

Although Staunton and Myers address the question of sexual orientation considering homosexuality, they both have slightly different conclusions. Myers focuses on family values in his research which culminates in several observations that alter his assumptions. He claims there is no psychological or parental influence on sexual orientation, meaning that child abuse, overprotective mothering, gay parents, and absentee fathers do not impact a child’s sexual orientation (Johnson, 2010). This claim also means that researchers have identified no means for parents to mold their child’s sexuality actively. Additionally, active faith does not affect sexual orientation, unlike sexual and other behaviors (Johnson, 2010). Johnson (2010) claims that church attendees are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, abuse drugs and alcohol, and divorce their partners. Nonetheless, for the males, it did not affect their probabilities of having a homosexual relationship. Contrary to common assumption, Myers claims that despite the gay rights movement's widespread support and the passing of gay rights laws, the population of homosexuals has not increased due to increasing tolerance of the lifestyle (Johnson, 2010). Two to three percent of the world's population identify as homosexuals, making them a minority group (Poushter, 2020). This finding addresses the concern of the general public that gay role models would result in more people being enticed into homosexuality (Johnson, 2010). From the preceding, Myers addressed the question of causality in his conclusions about homosexual orientation.

Contrary to Staunton, Myers finds biological factors impactful to one’s sexual orientation. Although he urges caution like Staunton, he asserts that findings dictate that biological siblings of homosexual people, particularly their identical twins, were more likely to be homosexual than people without close gay relatives (Johnson, 2010). Myers claims that the situation is due to prenatal influences and brain differences in the region responsible for sexual behavior. Consequently, he claims that sexual orientation is natural and not a voluntary moral decision. Myers also addresses the issue of change regarding sexual orientation. He claims that altering a person’s sexual orientation almost always fails (Johnson, 2010). Although numerous people have tried, only a few have succeeded. However, like Myers, he proposes that they try celibacy or marry against their desires, risking future divorce. Additionally, Myers claims the Bible has a minimal say on enduring sexual orientation and loving, same-sex, long-term partnerships. Of all the verses in the Protestant Bible, he claims only seven speak on this issue, and none of them is Jesus’ words (Johnson, 2010). These verses are also in the context of idolatry, adultery, temple prostitution, violence, and child abuse (The Holy Bible, 1986). Although various biblical scholars have formulated a case for and against same-sex relationships, they only differ in their biblical interpretation (Johnson, 2010). As such, it results in the call to action for people to discern their biblical mandates and priorities and consider scientific findings through a critical lens to acquire more knowledge on human sexuality.

Reasons for Different Conclusions

Myers’ and Staunton’s interpretations of issues regarding homosexuality offer some differing conclusions. First, Staunton focuses on the aspect that human beings should lead sexual lives that please God. In contrast, Myers focuses on upholding family values; hence his research does not have as strong an inclination towards theology as Staunton’s. Myers also claims that parental and psychological influences do not influence sexual orientation. Staunton claims several factors, including family, experience, and genetics, affect one’s sexual orientation. Unlike Staunton, Myers addresses the issue of the spread of homosexual orientation due to the popular gay rights movement that has led to an increased tolerance for same-sex relationships. Despite Staunton addressing the genetics of homosexual orientation, he dismissed the existing studies by showing their inadequacies in methodology and sampling, hence disproving the generalization of their results. However, Myers uses these findings in his claims to prove that homosexual orientation is genetic. Myers prefers to use Biblical evidence when Jesus directly speaks the words, and the contexts are similar to the situation he is applying them to. In contrast, Staunton uses the bible verses without these considerations; hence, they feature strongly in his claims. From these differences, I can conclude that the differences in the conclusions between Myers and Staunton are due to their different core values and principles. Myers holds family values dear; hence he focuses on how homosexuality impacts or is impacted by the family setting, unlike Staunton. The latter upholds Christian values the most hence his focus on the Christian morality of homosexual orientation. Furthermore, both Staunton and Myers have different interpretations of the Bible, with Myers focusing on the context of the verses and who said them. Overall, this study gave insight into the different perspectives of biblical teachings hence the need for discernment on which interpretation aligns with the truth.

References

American Bible Society. (1986). The Holy Bible. New York.

Bardon, A. (2018). Is epistemic accessibility enough? Same-sex marriage, tradition, and the Bible. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 23(1), 21-35. Doi: 10.1080/13698230.2018.1487231

Ellul, J., & Rollison, J. (2021). To will & to do. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Johnson, E. (2010). Psychology and Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.). InterVarsity Press.

Jones, T., Power, J., Hill, A., Despott, N., Carman, M., & Jones, T. et al. (2021). Religious conversion practices and LGBTQA + Youth. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(3), 1155-1164. Doi: 10.1007/s13178-021-00615-5

Poushter, J. (2020). The global divide on homosexuality persists. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/