SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY

THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY

DISSIDENT VS. CONSENSUS SCIENCE IN THE CHURCH

Charles R. Peterson, M.D., and Douglas A. Hedlund, M.D.

In the discussions on homosexuality leading up to the August 2005 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), scientific aspects of homosexuality were usually a part of the discussions.

It is our judgment that there were two distinct views of science involved in those discussions. One is the view of the large majority of medical and psychological scientists. The other view is that of a small and dissident minority that began when homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual of mental disorders. This minority view has often been presented as if it were equivalent in magnitude, substance and credibility among scientists to the consensus view, which it is not. It is also our view that this minority stance, by misrepresentation, obstructs rather than promotes sound health policies for gays and lesbians.

As heterosexual medical professionals and lifelong Lutherans, we have had a long interest in the controversy in the church over homosexuality. Our careers have spanned the time from when homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental pathology to the decades since then when it has been considered a normal variant and when nondiscrimination policies toward gays and lesbians have been adopted in all major medical institutions and organizations.

Therefore, in 2004 we authored a historical paper primarily for the Sexuality Task Force and ELCA bishops in which we outlined what we considered the majority consensus view: Homosexuality: Medical History and Current Understanding.

That paper cited no theologians. So to document the differences between the consensus and dissident views of science and also the links between the dissident scientific view and certain theological views on homosexuality, we prepared a second paper that examined the writings of four theologians. We titled it Heterosexism, Homosexual Health and the Church. We later combined these two documents and placed them online.

One of the four theologians we critiqued, Professor Robert Gagnon, wrote an extensive rebuttal for his web site (Part I, Part II, Part III). We have prepared a response to Professor Gagnon's rebuttal; it is called Heterosexist Moralism.

Since then Pastor David N. Glesne has published a book which also links a theology of homosexuality with dissident science views. It is Understanding Homosexuality: Perspectives for the Local Church. Our critique of Glesne's book is titled Misunderstanding Homosexuality.

Our historical consensus document and all three of our subsequent critiques can be accessed from the links below in both abbreviated and extended versions. All document the evidence and rationale for our judgments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Charles R. Peterson, M.D. Douglas A. Hedlund, M.D.

History and consensus understanding:

HOMOSEXUALITY: MEDICAL HISTORY AND CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
Outline, Critique, Definitions, End Notes

Abbreviated versions of our three critiques (definitions):

1. HETEROSEXISM, HOMOSEXUAL HEALTH AND THE CHURCH

2. HETEROSEXIST MORALISM

3. MISUNDERSTANDING HOMOSEXUALITY

Complete critiques (definitions):

1. HETEROSEXISM, HOMOSEXUAL HEALTH, AND THE CHURCH
   Outline, Introduction, Critique

2. HETEROSEXIST MORALISM
   Outline, Critique, Sources, Appendix i, Appendix ii

3. MISUNDERSTANDING HOMOSEXUALITY
   Outline, Introduction and Critique

The authors