Authors: Jones, Stanton L.; Kwee, Alex W.

Journal of Psychology & Christianity, Vol. 24(4), Win 2005, pp. 304-316

Abstract: Contemporary scientific findings are selectively reviewed to ascertain if recent research necessitates altering the conclusion of Jones and Yarhouse (2000) that scientific arguments fail to warrant overturning the Church’s traditional teaching about homosexuality. Reviewing the findings in six key areas of etiological research, we conclude that findings of biological causation of homosexuality are not unequivocal, while there is suggestive but similarly inconclusive evidence of environmental causation. Next, using a cross-cultural comparison of psychopathology rates among homosexuals, we challenge the ‘heterosexist rejection’ argument as the sole causative explanation for heightened psychological distress in LGBT populations. Finally, we discuss Spitzer’s (2003) treatment outcome research and conclude that change, though of unknown frequency, does occur for some individuals and reorientation therapy (offered with appropriate informed consent) should not be dismissed as a treatment option. We reaffirm our prior conclusion that scientific research does not warrant a revision of the Church’s historic position on homosexuality.

Author: Looy, Heather

Journal of Psychology & Christianity, Vol. 24(4), Win 2005, pp. 317-331

Abstract: Is there a relationship between our identities as women and men, and the direction of our sexual desires? The gender inversion model suggests that persons with same-sex attraction are manifesting a trait characteristic of the other gender, and are therefore not fully masculine or feminine. Evidence for gender inversion, and three theories that incorporate this model in some form—neurohormonal, exotic-becomes-erotic, and reparative drive’are critically reviewed. The implications of the data and models for our understanding of gender and sexual identity, particularly for Christians, are discussed.

Author: Yarhouse, Mark A.

Journal of Psychology & Christianity, Vol. 24(1), Spri 2005, pp. 29-35

Abstract:

How important is religion as a primary variable in the study of human sexuality and sexual behavior? Is religion merely a historical footnote in the study of human sexuality, to be regarded mostly as a social construction that limits sexual freedom, or is religion a key variable in the meaning structures around sexuality for some persons? This article makes three major points: (1) there exists a negative attitudinal set within the sexuality establishment in regards to religion that is not well-established (i.e., valid); (2) the ethical imperatives of the discipline of psychology mandate that religion as a variable be understood and explored respectfully; and (3) there is a possibility of a positive relationship for which a case example is provided.