Science and the Morality of
Homosexual Conduct
Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D.
Wheaton College
Major challenges to traditional view:
Call to love and acceptance
Supposed silence of Scripture
“New ethical truth”
(e.g., Gentiles, divorce)
Spirituality among gays
New truth from Science
Why Engage Science?
Two Divergent Christian Motivations
 As an exercise in Natural Theology or Natural
Ethics.
Presumes: Reason can lead to a consensus
ethic apart from Revelation.
Method: Inductive
Goal: Establish homosexual conduct as
wrong (or right) via reason
Why Engage Science?
Two Divergent Christian Motivations
 Natural Theology/Natural Ethics, or
 Apologetic Defense of Revealed Ethic.
Presumes: Science and Ethics are not
disconnected, but relationship is complex.
Method: Review science on science’s terms;
examine logic of application of science to
moral questions.
Goal: Responsible engagement of Science
and Theology/Ethics
Why Engage Science?
Two Divergent Christian QUESTIONS
 Natural Theology or Natural Ethics.
“Does Science Prove (or Validate)
Natural Ethics?”
 Apologetic Defense of Revealed Ethic.
“Does Science Disprove (or Invalidate)
Revealed Ethics?”
Challenging “Scientific” Assertions
 being gay is as healthy as being straight;
 sexual orientation is a biologically
determined given, environmental variables
contribute nothing;
 sexual orientation cannot be changed, the
attempt to change is intrinsically harmful;
 homosexual relationships are equivalent;
 identity is properly grounded in sexual
orientation.
To respond to claims of
“Science says . . .”, we must
 Ascertain the real findings of science
(and never accept “press release”
science reports) and critique these
studies with care
 Examine carefully the logic by which the
findings of science are applied to the
moral question
Quote re: “Gay Fruit Flies” 6/05
Human Rights Campaign
(“the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization”)
"Science is closing the door on right-wing
distortions. . . . The growing body of
scientific evidence continues to refute the
opponents of equality who maintain that
sexual orientation is a ‘choice’”
Quote re: “Gay Fruit Flies” 6/05
This study “will take the discussion
about sexual preferences out of
the realm of morality and put it
into the realm of science.”
Dr. Michael Weiss, Chairman of the Case
Western Reserve University Department of
Biochemistry, in the New York Times
The Great Weakness of
Homosexuality Research
 Inability to identify a representative
sample of GLB persons
 Statistical infrequency contributes to this
problem
 Further compounded by definitional
issues: “who counts?”
 Leads to severe problems with
“volunteer bias”
Etiology of Homosexuality
Biologically-Determined,
right?!?
Background on Brain Studies:
 There has been a pattern of publicized
findings that have never been replicated
 Brain differences may or may not be
genetic
 Brain differences may be either cause
or effect of behavioral/psychological
differences
 Hypothalamus regulates some sexual
behavior and other functions
LeVay reported that the INAH3 of
heterosexual females was
significantly smaller than that of
heterosexual males, AND on average
the INAH3 of homosexual males
was like that of heterosexual females
and significantly smaller than for
heterosexual males
HetM>(HetF & HomM)
Problems with LeVay’s study:
 Classification: Subjects presumed
heterosexual unless explicitly noted in
medical files
 Many subjects, heterosexual and
homosexual, died of AIDS
 Many had been treated with adrenergic
drugs; influence on brains?
 Reports circulated for years of failures
to replicate
William Byne et al. (2000, 2001):
 Careful sampling; equivalent samples
 Replicated that the INAH3 of
heterosexual females was significantly
smaller than that of heterosexual males
 Determined that the male-female INAH3
size difference was due to number of
neurons in that region
William Byne et al. (2000, 2001):
 Found homosexual males to be intermediate
between heterosexual females and
heterosexual males in INAH3 size; not
significantly different than either
 Found homosexual and heterosexual males
to have the same number of neurons in
INAH3 (homosexuals were like the
heterosexual males, and unlike the females)
QUOTE: Byne et al, 2001:
“Sexual orientation cannot be reliably
predicted on the basis of INAH3 volume
alone . . . sex related differences may also
emerge later in development as the neurons
that survive become part of functional
circuits.”
The difference in INAH3 volume could be
attributed to “a reduction in neuropil within
the INAH3 in the homosexual group” as a
result of “postnatal experience.”
Behavioral Genetics
Basic Logic of Behavioral Genetics:
If a behavioral or psychological pattern
is influenced by genetics, then
individuals who are more genetically
similar should also be more
behaviorally or psychologically similar
than individuals who are less
genetically similar.
Bailey and Pillard (1991) found (males):
Identical (monozygotic)
52% Probandwise
twins
Concordance; “29/56”
Fraternal (dizygotic)
twins
22% Probandwise
Concordance; “12/54”
Nontwin brothers
9% Probandwise
Concordance; “13/142”
Adopted brothers
11% Probandwise
Concordance; “6/57”
Here is what the public THINKS Bailey and Pillard found (“29/56”):
56 twin pairs total, of which there were
29 “matched” twin pairs (where both twins were gay):
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-
27 “non-matched” twin pairs (where only one twin was gay):
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-
Here is what Bailey and Pillard ACTUALLY found:
41 twin pairs total, of which there were
13 “matched” twin pairs (where both twins were gay):
-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|- |- |-
1 triplet trio “match,” where all three triplets were gay:
--
27 “non-matched” twin pairs (where only one twin was gay):
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
TOTAL OF 56 HOMOSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS IN 41 SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS
Bailey & Pillard Problems
 Crucial Methodological Problem: Method of
obtaining sample by ads in openly pro-gay
magazines creates possibility of volunteer
sample bias
 The decisive refutation: from Bailey, Dunne &
Martin (2000) himself:
– Sample drawn from the Australian twin registry
– “Probandwise concordance” dropped from 52% to
20% for identical twins
Here is what Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) found:
27 twin pairs total, of which there were
3 “matched” twin pairs (where both twins were gay):
-|-|-
24 “non-matched” twin pairs (where only one twin was gay):
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
QUOTE: Bailey et al, 2000:
The new study “did not provide statistically
significant support for the importance of
genetic factors” in causing homosexual
orientation.
“This suggests that concordances from prior
studies [i.e., his own two prior studies] were
inflated due to concordance dependent
ascertainment bias.”
New Research (2010) Reinforces Small
Genetic Contribution:
N. Långström, Q. Rahman, E. Carlström, & P.
Lichtenstein (2010), “Genetic and Environmental
Effects on Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: A
Population Study of Twins in Sweden,” Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 39, 75-80.
“Previous studies employed self-selected,
opportunistic, or small population-based samples.
[In contrast, their study] used data from a truly
population-based survey of all adult twins in
Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same
sex sexual behavior attempted so far.”
QUOTE: Långström et al, 2010:
Långström, N., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., & Lichtenstein, P.
“Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in
Sweden." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2010::
71 twin pairs total, of which there were
7 “matched” twin pairs (where both twins were gay):
-|-| -|-| -|-| -
64 “non-matched” twin pairs (where only one twin was gay):
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
TOTAL OF 78 HOMOSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS IN 71 SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS
14 MATCHES OUT OF 78 GAY MEN = 18% PC
QUOTE: Långström et al, 2010:
“[Our] results are consistent with
moderate, primarily genetic, familial
effects, and moderate to large effects
of the nonshared environment [i.e.,
familial, social and other effects].”
One last biological hypothesis . . .
 Brain studies
 Behavioral genetics
 Direct gene scanning <skipped>
 “Older brother hypothesis” <skipped>
 “Homosexuality as a Consequence of
Epigenetically Canalized Sexual
Development” Rice et al, Quarterly
Review of Biology, 12/2012
Direct Hormonal Effect on Gender
Characteristics Model
XY SRY testes  Hi T Masculinization
XXno SRYovariesLo T Feminization
Inadequate Model?
Hypothetical Fetal Circulating Testosterone
Lower Female
Higher Male
XY SRY testes  Hi T Masculinization
XXno SRYovariesLo T Feminization
INDIRECT MODEL
epi-marks= T hypersens
XY SRY testes  Hi T Masculinization
epi-marks= T hyposens
XXno SRYovariesLo T Feminization
Epigenetically Canalized Sexual
Development: Actual Evidence?
“Although we cannot provide definitive
evidence that homosexuality has a strong
epigenetic underpinning, we do think
available evidence is fully consistent with
this conclusion.”
-- Rice et al., p. 357
Epigenetically Canalized Sexual
Development: Potential problems
 Directly reliant on assumption of maternal
transmission of male homosexuality and
paternal transmission of female
homosexuality; neither solidly proven
 Counts on corroboration from data showing
greater fecundity of relatives of Gays &
Lesbians; actual data quite mixed
 Assumes pure biological programming of
sexual preference
Etiology of Homosexuality
No evidence of non-biological
causes, right?!?
Two recent studies . . .
Bearman & Brückner (2002)
American Journal of Sociology, 107 (5)
 National representative sample of over
30,000 US adolescents.
 “we show that adolescent male opposite-sex
(hereafter OS) twins are twice as likely as
expected to report same-sex attraction, and
that the pattern of concordance (similarity
across pairs) of same-sex preference for
sibling pairs does not suggest genetic
influence independent of the social context.”
- Bearman & Brückner (2002; p. 1181)
Bearman & Brückner (2002) findings:
Relationship
% with Sexual
Attraction
N
(all males)
Opposite sex twin
16.8%
185
Same sex twin DZ
9.8%
276
Same sex twin MZ
9.9%
262
Opposite sex full
sibling
Same sex full
sibling
Other (nonrelated,
half-siblings)
7.3%
427
7.9%
596
10.6%
832
Bearman & Brückner (2002)
QUOTE
 “Our data falsify the hormonal transfer
hypothesis, by isolating a single
condition that eliminates the OS
effect we observe—the presence of
an older same-sex sibling. . . . In
contrast, our results support the hypothesis
that less gendered socialization in early
childhood and preadolescence shapes
subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.”
- Bearman & Brückner (2002; p. 1181)
QUOTE
“The findings presented here confirm some
findings from previous research and stand in
marked contrast to most previous research in a
number of respects. First, we find no evidence for
intrauterine transfer of hormone effects on social
behavior. Second, we find no support for genetic
influences on same-sex preference net of social
structural constraints. Third, we find no evidence
for a speculative evolutionary model of
homosexual preference [the older-brother
findings]. Finally, we find substantial indirect
evidence is support of a socialization model at the
individual level”
- (Bearman & Brückner;
p. 1199)
Frisch & Hviid (October, 2006)
Archives of Sexual Behavior
 Title: “Childhood family correlates of
heterosexual and homosexual marriages:
A national cohort study of two million Danes ”
 “Because we do not know how representative
men and women in same-sex marriages are
of homosexuals in general, our findings
should not be used incautiously to define
childhood determinants of sexual orientation.”
Frisch & Hviid (October, 2006)
Archives of Sexual Behavior
 “Our analysis therefore provides
population-based, prospective evidence
that a variety of childhood family
experiences bear importantly of both
heterosexual and homosexual mating
patterns in adulthood.” Examples of
variables: being born in urban areas,
and for men, “having older mothers,
divorced parents, absent fathers”
Frisch & Hviid (October, 2006)
Archives of Sexual Behavior
 argued that much of the older brother research is
based on “notoriously unrepresentative homosexual
samples,”
 “our findings regarding the impact of siblings of
homosexual marriages in men raise questions as to
the universality of the fraternal birth order hypothesis
for male homosexuality… we found no indication that
older brothers were particularly common in these
homosexual men. Rather, older siblings, whether
brothers or sisters, were positively and linearly linked
to higher rates of heterosexual marriage in our study”
Logic of Application to
Moral Debate
QUOTE: Richard Hays, in
The Moral Vision of the New Testament:
The Bible’s sober anthropology rejects the apparently
commonsense assumption that only freely chosen
acts are morally culpable. Quite the reverse: the
very nature of sin is that it is not freely chosen.
That is what it means to live “in the flesh” in a fallen
creation. We are in bondage to sin but still
accountable to God’s righteous judgment of our
actions. In light of this theological anthropology, it
cannot be maintained that a homosexual orientation
is morally neutral because it is involuntary.”
The Question of Change
Unchangeable, right?!?
Counter-Argument on Change I:
“Change of behavior is always possible.
God holds people responsible for their
actions (which they choose) not their
proclivities (many of which they do not
choose)”
Counter-Argument on Change II:
Dozens of studies have been published
documenting that change is possible for
some via therapeutic and religious means.
No scientific studies exist that refute those
studies.
The studies are dismissed based on
methodological criticism, cynicism, and
negative anecdotes.
Research on Change
Study
†Bieber (1962)
Birk (1974)
CantomDutari (1976)
Hadden (1966)
Johnsgard &
Schumacher (1970)
†‡Kaye et al. (1967)
MacCulloch &
Feldman (1967)
Modality
Individual
Group
N #PO %PO Source
Change Reported
106 29
27 Analyst-Report
Hom. Beh.; Het. Beh.
66 14
21 Therapist-Report Het. Beh. or marriage
Individual
Group
54
32
11
12
Group
Individual
5
24
---6
Individual
43
25
20
38
Hom Be/Attr;Het Beh/Att/O
---25
Therapist-Report
Analyst-Report
---Orientation (Kinsey-like)
56
†MacIntosh (1994)
McConaghy (1970)
Individual 1215 276 23
Individual 40 10 25
Mintz (1966)
Group
10
3
30
Client-Report
(Kinsey Scale)
Analyst-Report
Client-Report
(Penile vol.)
Analyst-Report
Group
6
3
50
Therapist-Report
Group
30
20
Pittman &
DeYoung (1971)
*Truax &
Tourney (1971)
van den
Aardweg (1986)
Attr.
Individual
101
Hom. Beh; Het. Beh.
Client-Report
Analyst-Report
67
37 37
Hom/Beh/Fa.;Het/Beh/Fa
Orientation (Kinsey scale)
Hom. Beh.; Het. Beh., Attr.
Hom. Beh.; Het. Beh., Attr.
(Hom. Attr.)
Hom. Beh., Attr.; Het.Beh.,
Attr.; Orientation
Hom. Beh.; Het. Beh.
Client-Report
HomBeh/Fa;Het.Beh/Fa.
(Analyst-Report)
(“improved”)
Analyst-Report
Hom. Beh., Attr. Het. Beh.,
Robert Spitzer Archives of Sexual
Behavior (2003):
Studied sample of 200 self-defined success cases
(143 males, 57 females). Spitzer found that a
majority of participants reported shifting from a
predominantly or exclusively homosexual
orientation before therapy to a predominantly or
exclusively heterosexual orientation in the year
prior to their interview. Most significantly, change
was reported in variables that are considered fairly
static dimensions of sexual orientation, including
sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, and yearning.
Counter-Argument on Change III:
Jones and Yarhouse (2007, 2011)
Stanton L. Jones &
Mark A. Yarhouse,
Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 2011,
37, 404-427
Two Key Issues:
Is change
possible?
Is attempted
change harmful?
American Psychological Association:
“What About So-Called ‘Conversion
Therapies’ ?”
“. . . claims are poorly documented. For
example, treatment outcome is not followed
and reported over time as would be the
standard to test the validity of any mental
health intervention.”
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
American Psychological Association:
“What About So-Called "Conversion
Therapies"? (contd.)
“The American Psychological
Association is concerned about such
therapies and their potential harm to
patients.”
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
American Psychiatric Association
“[T]here is no published scientific
evidence supporting the efficacy of
‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to
change one’s sexual orientation. The
potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are
great, including depression, anxiety and
self-destructive behavior.”
www.psych.org/archives/news_room/press_releases/rep_therapy.cfm
Exodus International
 a “worldwide interdenominational,
Christian organization called to
encourage, strengthen, unify and equip
Christians to minister the transforming
power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those
affected by homosexuality.”
 “Freedom from homosexuality through
the power of Jesus Christ.”
Standards for Scientific Excellence:
 Prospective Design
 Longitudinal Design
 Representative Sample
 Utilize Best Self-Report Measures of
Sexual Orientation
 Large Subject Population
 Sample different Exodus groups
Qualitative Categories
of Outcomes:
 Success: Conversion (to Heterosexuality)
 Success: Chastity (“Freedom to live
chaste”)
 Continuing Change
 No Response
 Failure: Confused
 Failure: Gay Identity
Outcome Results
RESULTS:
Is Change Harmful?
Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) General Severity
Index (GSI) Scores for the Three Populations
by Non-Patient Norms
Whole Population
Time 1
Phase 1
Time 6
Truly Gay
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Conclusion:
Is Change Possible?
Yes, to some degree, for some.
Is Attempt to Change Harmful?
On average, no.
Conclusion:
What Are We To Do?
Manifest Love
Live the Truth