Anglican Mainstream

From Professor Glynn Harrison

Sir, — The Very Revd Dr David L. Edwards states (Comment, 5 April) that homosexuality is “natural for an important minority of mankind”. Although I am not sure how the term “natural” is being used, it appears to assume the existence of reliable evidence for a biological “cause” of different patterns of sexual attractions, and presumably other sexual variations as well.

This commonly held misunderstanding is usually based upon a report several years ago of a possible “gay gene” on the q28 region of the X chromosome or possible differences in the hypothalamic region of the brains of gay men. Taken together, these early studies were used to develop a biological story about the causation of same-sex desires which Dr Edwards holds up as “modern knowledge” that must be “in tension” with biblical standards of morality.

Modern brain-imaging studies indeed confirm that certain behaviours show up in the size and functionality of different areas in the brain. For example, we can see differences in the brains of London taxi-drivers, jugglers, and even those who often tell lies.

But these studies have shown that not only does our brain shape our behaviour, but our behaviour shapes our brain. In the wake of the human-genome project, there is a growing understanding of the way genes can be switched on and off by our environment and the way we respond to it. When it comes to understanding complex human behaviours, the parts played by environment, experience, and human choice, as well as biological susceptibility, are very much back in the reckoning.

So we should not be surprised that those early findings of a “gay gene” and “gay brains” have not been replicated. Indeed, in recent studies the evidence for a significant genetic contribution to what we call sexual “orientation” has weakened rather than strengthened.

Experiences of same-sex desire (and other sexual preferences) involve biological contributions at some level, as do all complex human behaviours. But there is nothing in the medical or scientific evidence that need subvert the ethical requirements of scripture or the biblical ordering of human relationships. It seems ironic that, in calling for “great care for the facts”, Dr Edwards should demonstrate such a poor grasp of them.
GLYNN HARRISON
Consultant Psychiatrist, and Professor of Mental Health in the University of Bristol
2 Harley Place
Bristol BS 83 JT

[Read here->http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=37720]

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.