Science and the bio-genesis of homosexuality
19 April 2006- Nigeria- This is defined as the disorder of
people who are not only sexually aroused by same-sex stimuli but are
distressed by such arousal, because homosexual stimuli are incompatible
with the individual’s conscience. The distress must be consciously
perceived. An individual with homosexual arousal may be distressed
because he or she is not accepted by the society. However, unless the
distress is a result of an internal conflict…the essential features of
Dyshomophilia are not met. The question might be: why are they not
accepted by the society? We might not give this answer outright,
rather, let us address the physiological, that is, genetic and hormonal
bases of homosexuality. Rosenthal (1970)
indicates that homosexual tendencies are not inherited. Today, this
theory has not been disproved. But does homosexuality have any hormonal
base? Now, owing to the probability that homosexual feelings and
behaviour appear to be so resistant to change—either through therapy or
through threat of any kind—many have suggested that homosexuality is
caused by some kind of imbalance of sex-related hormones, namely:
testosterone and estrogen. Testosterone is regarded as associated with
sex characteristics typical of mature men, while estrogen serves to make
a woman what she is physically. Anele toed this line, arguing that in
the embryonic stage of human development, certain variables, which he
failed to identify, could result in hormonal imbalance. This is not
disputed. What is disputed is whether these could result to homosexual
behaviour.
Now, Loraine and his colleagues (1971) found in fact
that urine of homosexual men contains less testosterone than that of
heterosexual men. In lesbians, urinary level of testosterone was
higher. Koldney and his group (1971) confirmed it. But Barlow and his
co-workers (1974) found out that plasma testosterone levels in a group
of 15 homosexual men seeking therapy for their homosexuality was as high
as those of Koldny’s heterosexual controls. Brodie and his associates
(1974) compared levels of plasma testosterone in 19 male homosexuals
drawn from a gay community at a West coast university, with those found
in 20 heterosexual men. In both sample groups, contact with sexual
partners had been exclusively homosexual or heterosexual for at least
the preceding year. Levels of plasma testosterone were significantly
higher in the homosexual group.
From the above, it could be said that there is a
connection between testosterone and estrogen levels with homosexuality,
and also heterosexuality. But even if we agree that imbalance of sexual
hormones are traceable in homosexuals than in the heterosexuals, it
could not be said that this imbalance could determine the behaviour of
the individual. In other words, the imbalance of testosterone and
estrogen in the homosexual could not be said for certain to be the cause
of the behaviour.
The imbalance could as well be as a result of the
behaviour; for most cases studies were done within adult males or
females, who have been engaged in homosexuality for, at least, more than
four years of adulthood. The fact was that they were not studied right
from puberty or below, but on maturation. Were it that they were
studied on puberty or below, that is, before maturation, and the level
of their testosterone and estrogen, examined, the question of certainty
with regards to the cause of homosexual behaviour would have been
rested. But that is not the case, which means, the theory of scientific
cause and effect with regards to the levels of testosterone and estrogen
is a tentative and a highly unsubstantiated one.
Our esteemed philosopher’s vituperation of religious
men and questioning of theology as a science in that article needs to be
revisited. Again, for Anele to dispute that sex is intended by nature
for procreation is a denial of the obvious. Actually, sex is intended by
nature for procreation, but “not only” for procreation. We do not
dispute that there are other usefulness of sex besides procreation.
Neither did St. Thomas Aquinas say that sex that is not intended for
procreation is unnatural. He could say that it is perverted but not
unnatural. For we believe that every sexual act should be opened for
procreation. Even homosexual sex is not unnatural but disordered.
At any rate, Anele’s empiricism as the only method of
arriving at objectivity is suspicious especially as it regards the
nature of God. How could one measure what one could not see? We cannot
see God. I think Anele is making a categorical mistake when he subjects
God to scientific analysis. God does not belong to the class of the
measurable. And the science of God, theology differs from empirical
science. Given this, when we say that marriage is instituted by God, it
does not mean the same way a house is built by a man.
Every discipline has its own jargons and methods, and so when we talk
about God, we use the language of theology. To impose scientism on
theology is dictatorship. So far, we saw how scientists dumped their
method to embrace litigation and legalism. If scientists could do so,
what prevents the politicians from doing such? More so, our law makers
were acting on purpose. They were applauded because they were saving
the institution of marriage and procreation from total decay and
collapse. To allow gay marriage is to de-emphasize the right and reason
to procreate and have a family. Even our forefathers will condemn such.
|
