Other Resources and Observations
Dr Laura Slessinger and James M Kaufman
In her "no-nonsense" advice on satellite radio show, physiologist Dr. Laura Slessinger, as an observant Orthodox Jew, has said that homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter, to Dr. Laura, from James M. Kauffman, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
- Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
- I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual "uncleanliness" - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
- When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
- I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
- A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?
- Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
- Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
- I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
- My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia.
PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Christian Role Models for LGBT Equality
christian-role-models.pdf |
Scientific Studies into Homosexuality
HUMAN GENETICS Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behaviour. Andrea Ganna1,2,3,4*, Karin J. H. Verweij5 *, Michel G. Nivard6 , Robert Maier1,2,3, Robbee Wedow1,3,7,8,9,10,11, Alexander S. Busch12,13,14, Abdel Abdellaoui5 , Shengru Guo15, J. Fah Sathirapongsasuti16, 23andMe Research Team16, Paul Lichtenstein4 , Sebastian Lundström17, Niklas Långström4 , Adam Auton16, Kathleen Mullan Harris18,19, Gary W. Beecham15, Eden R. Martin15, Alan R. Sanders20,21, John R. B. Perry12†, Benjamin M. Neale1,2,3†, Brendan P. Zietsch22
genitic_markers_for_sexual_orientation.pdf |
- NATURE 23 August 2021
- Genetic patterns offer clues to evolution of homosexuality - Same-sex attraction seems to be at least partly controlled by genetics.
To evolutionary biologists, the genetics of homosexuality seems like a paradox. In theory, humans and other animals who are exclusively attracted to others of the same sex should be unlikely to produce many biological children, so any genes that predispose people to homosexuality would rarely be passed on to future generations. Yet same-sex attraction is widespread in humans, and research suggests that it is partly genetic.
In a study of data from hundreds of thousands of people, researchers have now identified genetic patterns that could be associated with homosexual behaviour, and showed how these might also help people to find different-sex mates, and reproduce. The authors say their findings, published on 23 August in Nature Human Behaviour1, could help to explain why genes that predispose people to homosexuality continue to be passed down. But other scientists question whether these data can provide definitive conclusions.
Evolutionary geneticist Brendan Zietsch at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and his colleagues used data from the UK Biobank, the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and the company 23andMe, based in Sunnyvale, California, which sequence genomes and use questionnaires to collect information from their participants. The team analysed the genomes of 477,522 people who said they had had sex at least once with someone of the same sex, then compared these genomes with those of 358,426 people who said they’d only had heterosexual sex. The study looked only at biological sex, not gender, and excluded participants whose gender and sex did not match.
In earlier research, the researchers had found that people who’d had at least one same-sex partner tended to share patterns of small genetic differences scattered throughout the genome2. None of these variations seemed to greatly affect sexual behaviour on its own, backing up previous research that has found no sign of a gay gene. But the collection of variants seemed to have a small effect overall, explaining between 8% and 25% of heritability.
Next, the researchers used a computer algorithm to simulate human evolution over 60 generations. They found that the array of genetic variations associated with same-sex behaviour would have eventually disappeared, unless it somehow helped people to survive or reproduce.- Zietsch and his team decided to test whether these genetic patterns might provide an evolutionary edge by increasing a person’s number of sexual partners. They sorted the participants who had only had heterosexual sex by the number of partners they said they had had, and found that those with numerous partners tended to share some of the markers that the team had found in people who had had a same-sex partner.
The researchers also found that people who’d had same-sex encounters shared genetic markers with people who described themselves as risk-taking and open to new experiences. And there was a small overlap between heterosexual people who had genes linked to same-sex behaviour and those whom interviewers rated as physically attractive. Zietsch suggests that traits such as charisma and sex drive could also share genes that overlap with same-sex behaviour, but he says that those traits were not included in the data, so “we’re just guessing”.
The authors acknowledge many limitations of the study. All of the participants lived in the United Kingdom or United States, and were of European descent. And the databases’ questionnaires asked about sexual behaviour, not sexual attraction. Most of the participants were born during a time when homosexuality was either illegal or culturally taboo in their countries, so many people who were attracted to others of the same sex might never have actually acted on their attraction, and could therefore have ended up in the wrong group in the study.
Julia Monk, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, thinks that these caveats are so important that the paper can’t draw any real conclusions about genetics and sexual orientation. Sexual behaviour and reproduction, she says, occupy a different place in modern societies than they did for human ancestors, so it’s difficult to infer their role in our evolution. For instance, people might engage with more sexual partners now that sexually transmitted diseases can be cured. And the existence of birth control and fertility treatments negates many of the reproductive advantages that genes might provide. “It’s clear that people’s behaviour when it comes to sex and reproduction is highly culturally informed, and maybe digging into genetics is next to impossible,” Monk says.- Qazi Rahman, a psychologist at King’s College London, thinks that the study was well-conducted, but he is sceptical of some of the conclusions. He says the data sets are too biased towards people who were willing to reveal their sexual behaviour to researchers, which could itself be considered a risky behaviour that could be reflected in the genetic data. He adds that once the data are broken down into men and women, and into those who had only had same-sex partners versus those who had encounters across sexes, the number of people in each group becomes so small that the genetic linkages are very weak.
- Dean Hamer, a retired geneticist in Haleiwa, Hawaii, who published some of the first studies on the genetics of sexual orientation, is disappointed with the study. Defining sexual orientation on the basis of a single same-sex encounter is not a useful way of categorizing people, he says, because many people who identify as heterosexual have experimented with a same-sex partner. “You’re not even asking the right people the right question,” Hamer says. Instead, he thinks the researchers have found genetic markers associated with openness to new experiences, which could explain the overlap between people who have had a homosexual partner and heterosexual people who have had many partners.
Zietsch says that risk-taking can explain only part of the statistical link between markers associated with same-sex encounters and those associated with number of partners. And he admits that using a single homosexual experience as an indication of sexual orientation isn’t ideal, but says that the UK Biobank didn’t provide data on attraction. Zietsch’s previous research on data from 23andMe showed a strong genetic overlap between people who reported same-sex sexual experiences and those who reported same-sex attraction, suggesting that the same genes controlled both factors.
Hamer acknowledges that linking a complex behaviour to genetics is extremely difficult, but says he is glad the team is researching sexual orientation. “It’s vastly understudied considering it’s a driving force for the human race,” he says. “It’s a good question, they just didn’t find an answer.”
Nature 597, 17-18 (2021)
References
- 1.Zietsch, B. P. et al. Nature Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01168-8 (2021).
- 2.Ganna, A. et al. Science 365, eaat7693 (2019).
There are many other resources on-line - Search for; 'homosexuality' 'Christianity' (or whatever faith you personally adhere to).
You will find sources that agree with what is written on this website and others that do not.
You will also find a lot of ill-founded claims, flawed and biased research and a lot of very muddled thinking. So do please consider carefully what you read, do check out all the claims, take nothing at face value - read all you like and then use that wonderful God-given brain to evaluate what you have found, whilst keeping in mind the following facts:
1. Leviticus was never intended to be applicable to races other than the Jews, even when it was written. On the contrary, it was specifically designed to enable the Jewish race to demonstrate that they were different from (and superior to!), all other races.
2. St. Paul argued vehemently that anyone becoming a Christian should not be required to adopt any part of Leviticus'.
3. It was St. Paul's stance that was adopted by the established Christian church; 'By faith alone you are saved.' (ie not by adherence to any codes or laws written by men.)