Sunday, March 25, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

God and His Gays

by Harold Meyerson

Reposted from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001428.html

Thanks to Cleland Welton for sending this in.

Science is stealing up on America's religious fundamentalists, causing much alarm. Consider the dilemma of the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and a leading figure in the Southern Baptist firmament.

Writing in his blog this month, Mohler acknowledged that " the direction of the research" increasingly points to the possibility that a "biological basis for sexual orientation exists." Should sexuality be determined in utero, Mohler continued, that still wouldn't justify abortion or genetic engineering.

Nonetheless, as Mohler noted in a later blog post, his admission that the data suggest that homosexuality may be as genetically determined as hair color produced a torrent of irate e-mail from his fellow evangelical Christians. Up to now, the preferred theory among Christian conservatives has been that homosexuality is behaviorally induced and thus can be unlearned. That gave added moral weight to the biblical proscriptions of gay and lesbian sex and to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality as a sin -- though for those who believe in biblical inerrancy, no added moral weight was necessary.

But once you recognize homosexuality as a genetic reality, it does create a theological dilemma for the Mohlers among us, for it means that God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin. Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind. That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person -- let's assume fidelity and the desire for church sanctification in both cases -- and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved. Indeed, it means that a gay person's duty is to suppress his God-given instincts while a straight person's duty is to fulfill his.

Mohler's deity, in short, is the God of Double Standards: a God who enforces the norms and fears of a world before science, a God profoundly ignorant of or resistant to the arc of American history, which is the struggle to expand the scope of the word "men" in our founding declaration that "all men are created equal." This is a God who in earlier times was invoked to defend segregation and, before that, slavery.

This is a God whom vast numbers of this nation's self-professed believers (not to mention its nonbelievers, such as I) neither heed nor like very much, particularly the young, who in growing numbers support gay marriage and certainly don't consider gay coupling any more sinful than they do straight coupling. That said, this God still commands millions of followers, among them Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Old Time Religion, who recently declared homosexuality immoral in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

Indeed, this God commands so many followers that the initial tendency of presidential candidates who know better was to duck when they themselves were asked last week about the morality of gay sex. Sen. Hillary Clinton, when first asked if homosexuality was immoral, answered that it was for "others to conclude," before righting herself to say that she didn't think being gay was immoral. Sen. Barack Obama, according to Newsweek, avoided a direct answer three times before coming to his senses and disagreeing with Pace. The spokesperson for Sen. John "Straight-Talk Express" McCain said that "the senator thinks such questions are a matter of conscience and faith for people to decide for themselves." Such political and moral contortions are hardly confined to presidential candidates.

In Utah, a new law requires school principals to police every student organization to ensure that there's no discussion of "human sexuality" (though experts believe the topic may still come up among teenage students). Lest it seem discriminatory, the statute applies to every student group under the sun, but it is entirely a reaction to the formation of gay-straight clubs at Utah high schools.

There is, however, no ban as yet on high school biology teachers discussing the biological basis of homosexuality, and as the data confirming this thesis continue to mount, that could confront even those of Pace's persuasion with Mohler's conundrum: how to reconcile a God who creates homosexuals with a God who condemns practicing homosexuals to hell? A mysterious God may be well and good, but a capricious or contradictory God can inspire so much doubt that He threatens the credibility of the entire religious enterprise.

After all, there are few American believers who don't profess at least some faith as well in the verities of proven science and the rightness of our national credo's commitment to human equality. By effectively insisting that God is a spiteful homo-hater, his followers saddle him with ancient phobias and condemn him to the backwaters of American moral life.

meyersonh@washpost.com

See posted comments at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007032001428

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, March 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 42 of 42 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #27530 by Agkistrodon on March 25, 2007 at 7:26 am

from the article:

That gave added moral weight to the biblical proscriptions of gay and lesbian sex and to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality as a sin --

The concrete-minded literalists of the Wholly Babble fail at exegesis. Taken literally, there is no babblical prohibition against lesbian sex. The references specify male-male homosex. They want literal interpretation of the Noah's ark story but also want non-literal extension of male-male homosex to female-female. They can't have it both ways. I've never seen a babblical verse that says "free interpretation allowed here" or "literal interpretation required here."

Agkistrodon

Other Comments by Agkistrodon

2. Comment #27533 by Fishpeddler on March 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

"That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person... and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved."

No one sidesteps logical conundrums quite as blissfully as Christian fundamentalists, so I don't hold much hope for this development having much effect on that community. Hopefully, though, this will further encourage the vast numbers of people who have simply acquiesced to anti-homosexual bigotry to reject it once and for all.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

3. Comment #27535 by freestateofmind on March 25, 2007 at 7:40 am

I remember thinking as a kid that surely a god doesn't exist if he, she, or it "forms" every baby in its mother's womb. That would mean the god purposely created down syndrome babies, autistic babies. con-joined babies, and all other babies with mental and physical disabilities--even to those mothers who were in perfect health and didn't expose the unborn baby to any known dangers. So the theists response of "well, God is justly punishing the child for the sins of the parents" doesn't wash either. That only adds to the cruelness of that god. The verse describing the OT god doing this to newborns (even to multiple generations down the line) should be enough for anyone to be utterly repulsed at such a god.

I think that most straight people don't realize they are using faulty logic and what I call "personal preference projection." Thats when you are describing something to someone else or vice versa, and you project your personal preference onto the other person (or group). Say for instance I and a friend are talking about food. He mentions he loves turnip greens. I immediately go "YUCK!" and can't imagine how in the world this guy can like turnip greens. Same thing when talking to a straight person about non-heterosexual relationships. The straight person goes "yuck, I can't imagine liking someone of the same sex..." and therefore thinks its silly or sinful for any one else to do so.
I still can't imagine anyone eating turnip greens. See what I mean.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

4. Comment #27538 by jonahemery on March 25, 2007 at 7:52 am

Genetic proof that homosexuality is not a choice will do much to correct Biblical interpretation and will remove the hate. It's sad that science is needed for this moral issue at all. Do you need science to prove that black people are biologically equal to white people and indeed are the same type of species? It should be morally apparent.

Other Comments by jonahemery

5. Comment #27541 by Logicel on March 25, 2007 at 8:21 am

freestateofmind wrote: "I think that most straight people don't realize they are using faulty logic and what I call "personal preference projection."
______

Stupidly, therapy has been until recently focused on 'helping' gays to get over their 'problem.' Therapy, instead should be used to help people who are disturbed by gay sex to get over their problem.

In the late sixties, on a student union march/meeting at Wash DC, while we were all sleeping together on some school gym's wooden floor, I had my first glimpse of 2 men cuddling and kissing each other. I was 18 at the time, and it made me feel uncomfortable. That was the beginning of my own personalized, inner therapy. Intellectually and rationally I could see that there was nothing morally wrong with how these two young men were acting, and that I was the one with the problem. Now, decades later, I enjoy seeing any affection/love displayed between consenting adults as it is a positive, uplifting experience. I treated myself, and the cure was a success!

Other Comments by Logicel

6. Comment #27542 by Lord_Satorious on March 25, 2007 at 8:26 am

I don't care if one's homosexuality is a _choice_ -- insofar as sex is behavior and all behavior is voluntary, therefore it stands to reason that anyone could decide to engage in homosexuality, even if merely out of curiosity rather than predisposition -- anyone who disagrees with homosexual acts is either motivated by religious teachings or is latently homosexual themselves. Hating someone because they don't have sex with the same people you have sex with is about as stupid as hating them because they don't eat the same food you eat--as freestateofmind mentioned. How tolerant the surrounding culture is has a great deal to do with how likely an individual will be to have a homosexual relationship even if the individual is heterosexual in the sense they will eventually get married to the opposite gender and have children when they reach the appropriate age. This is common in India (or was it Thailand?), where the genders are very much segregated.

Even if homosexuality is found to be 100% genetic in _all_ cases (unlikely, I believe homosexuality can be helped along by nurture, have psychological roots or even personal choice as much as strictly nature, albeit not as common), you know the religious fanatics will find an excuse to make it some test by God that one must get over in life.

On a side note, I don't think parents have any right to shield their children from the teaching of homosexuality in schools. They may cite religious reasons, but the real question that must be asked is, 'why, what are you afraid of?' It's bigotry and ignorance hidden behind parental rights. If a child sees two people of the same gender kissing in public (something I'm sure more than a few people wish was illegal), the child is not going to be scarred by witnessing it (unless strict religious upbringing instills hellfire and brimstone at such an act, of course). If the child questions why the two boys/girls are kissing, the parent can explain this to the child in any fashion they feel is appropriate, and based on the child's personality, he/she will either accept or reject their parents' explanation. Parents don't have nearly the control over their children they think they do, children do have minds of their own as it were.

Other Comments by Lord_Satorious

7. Comment #27547 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

Hey I love mustard! Have some more tolerance for my way of life!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

8. Comment #27548 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

It goes well with ham.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

9. Comment #27550 by Logicel on March 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

ColAbernathy, You need to try my recipe for my special Dijon mustard--a vat of fine white wine with a few mustard seeds, preferably of the organic persuasion, floating on top to give it some attitude.

Other Comments by Logicel

10. Comment #27551 by The Wee Flea on March 25, 2007 at 8:57 am

"Genetic proof that homosexuality is not a choice will do much to correct Biblical interpretation and will remove the hate. It's sad that science is needed for this moral issue at all. Do you need science to prove that black people are biologically equal to white people and indeed are the same type of species? It should be morally apparent."

Indeed it should. But it was not so to David Hume, Aldous Huxley, H G Wells. Indeed at the time the 'scientific' consensus amongst the liberal elite was that some races were superior to others (which of course could have some scientific basis - we may want all races to be equal but what if there was empirical evidence - as these men thought- that one race was superior?). Thankfully men like William Wilberforce and many other Christians accepted the biblical teaching that all human beings were created equally in the image of God and that therefore there was no basis for discrimination. I'm glad that science has (mostly) caught up...

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

11. Comment #27557 by Logicel on March 25, 2007 at 9:18 am

ColAbernathy, your comment was funny and appreciated--I was just being silly back.

Other Comments by Logicel

12. Comment #27562 by atkinson on March 25, 2007 at 9:39 am

Wee Flea: Science is not ever likely to "catch up" to the notion that human beings were created equally in the image of God; nor are religionists likely to recognise any Darwinian reality that might support homosexual attraction, e.g., that daughters of gay men produce more offspring than daughters of straights.

Other Comments by atkinson

13. Comment #27564 by Gordon Brown on March 25, 2007 at 9:59 am

All talk of mustard aside (;-}= ...I appreciate how Meyerson, with a minimum of rhetorical fuss, makes the logical conundrum so clearly cut. I believe that the evidence for genetic disposition to homosexuality will be treated by members of the God Squad in exactly the same manner in which they treat the evidence for evolution of species. They will either refuse to acknowledge the evidence; or, much as they've already done with "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and others of that ilk, they will concoct a florid and tortuously labyrinthine countertheory to explain it all away.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

14. Comment #27566 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 10:07 am

Wee Flea - just a few brief points:

1) Science is a self refining process - there are many things which would have been considered "scientific" (and after all the word just refers to knowledge) at one time which have been superceded or indeed dumped in light of new research. Indeed it HAS to be like this. Douglas Adams put it beautifully:

"Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes" Exactly.

2) Now compare this with religion esp the Abrahamic religions whose ideas are rooted in bronze age texts and are utterly unquestionable. Adams had something to say about that as well:

"Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? � because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. "

3) Much of slavery was justified by the so called "Curse of Cannan" and other passages in the Bible. There is no shortage of quotes from famous people who believed this at the time, eg:

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

4)Yes, all human beings are created equally. Just a pity about women isnt it?

"1 Timothy 2:11-15: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (NIV)

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

15. Comment #27567 by Logicel on March 25, 2007 at 10:11 am

Yes, ColonelAbernathy, I am kidding, and just running with the brilliant mustard ball you threw. Unless of course I am lying, and I really do drink my mustard instead of eating it. (:-)

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #27568 by freestateofmind on March 25, 2007 at 10:13 am

Lord_Satorious you made some good comments. I agree. Most theists don't even stop to think that even if it were a choice, that would make their argument against it even more ludicrous! Who would they be deriding someones personal choice. Its like those folks who like tall women over petite women. Or blondes over brunettes. But, I doubt they will ever see it that way.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

17. Comment #27569 by Gordon Brown on March 25, 2007 at 10:14 am

An afterthought...anyone interested in the moral implications of sexual preference (if, indeed, any exist) should read John Corvino's excellent essay on the topic: Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), especially pp. 4-7. Therein he carefully dissects the distinctions between "moral/immoral," "natural/unnatural," and "disgusting/nondisgusting." The upshot is that the natural/unnatural distinction cannot provide normative force; i.e., we cannot base what is moral on what is natural, and contrariwise. Thus when individuals express moral misgivings about homosexuality, Corvino argues, they are actually rendering aesthetic judgments, not moral ones.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

18. Comment #27573 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 10:39 am

David Robertson, Hello. Further to the points already made I'd say racist attitudes were prevalent and often uncritically accepted in the C19th and much of the C20th, indeed racism is still a big problem in the world today.

I'm not convinced science has ever provided a basis for racism, but I'm not surprised there have been plenty of people able to allow to allow an uncritical reading of it to support their pre-existing racist beliefs. The lesson here is to be more rigorously scientific and critical in our thinking, not less.

But if you want any examples of racism look at the harmful and insulting attitude of C19th missionaries towards the "savages" they sought to convert. For an example of intolerance just look how J.W.Colenso was treated just for being more respectful than his missionary colleagues.

William Wilberforce is to be commended for not drawing his morals from the bible, which as scottishgeologist points out condones slavery (just as it condones polygamy).

The more people who do likewise the better I think.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

19. Comment #27580 by DavidJMH on March 25, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Richard Dawkins has done the western world a great disservice by using ideas and language associated with homosexuality, to put forward the argument for atheists to "come out". Either deliberately or inadvertently, he has equated enlightenment and reason in the minds of those with a religious bent, to be a license for licentious and irresponsible behavior. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle nor is it acceptable for a society to survive, advance and prosper.
Certainly, homosexual behavior is practiced by various primates and other mammals, but only during adolescence and here is the point, it is simply practice at sexual experimentation amongst adolescent males which are not mature enough to command the right to service females. They grow out of it and assert their position to that right, and those that don't are shunned and ostracized, for their society innately recognizes the danger they are in if they do not.
Humans innately know this to be true too and the western world, led by the hedonistic USA, is headed down the path to destruction because it has become too self indulgent and decadent to recognize it. Homosexuality, once accepted as the norm by a society, is a precursor to inevitable decline. History shows this to be the case and every civilization which ignores this rule does so at it's peril. This rule has nothing the do with religion, it is a proven evolutionary fact, no matter how unpalatable it may be to some, and the meddling priesthood are doing their flock and western civilization a great mischief by prevaricating and trying to appeal to a wider group to fill their coffers; they have no balls either.
Again, homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle; it is a mental sickness, a physical perversion and a social vice. Those who are unable to give it up are not men at all, but self indulgent, cowardly and immature boys and do not have the right to be called men or treated with the respect that that title presumes. The only upside about homosexuality, is the lack of maturity and cowardliness exhibited by adherents is not passed into the genetic pool.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

20. Comment #27582 by Circumspect on March 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Thank you, DavidJMH, for the useful reminder that ignorance and bigotry toward gay people isn't strictly a quality of the religious. I take it you are non-religious.

Other Comments by Circumspect

21. Comment #27584 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 12:56 pm

DavidJMH your argument seems to be the more gay people there are the less children we will beget which could lead to the human race dying out.

What do you say to the women and men who remain spinsters or batchelors and don't have any children? Are they indulgent, cowardly and immature?

There are many ways in which individuals can contribute to civilisation not just by having children, and great contributions to the arts and sciences (not to mention the day by day running of society) have been made by gay people.

You seem motivated by the assumption that once it's accepted soon we'll all end up gay. An assumption with no grounds.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

22. Comment #27587 by Bremas on March 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm

DavidJMH, you gotta let go. Look at the bright side, less competition for you.

On a more serious note, I suggest that you think about your position a little more thoroughly. It sounds like you approach the idea of homosexuality from a top down design view.

I live in a building with a half dozen or so professional couples who are also homosexual. They don't go around announcing it. It's just something you figure out about them over time.
In fact my landlord is gay. He's never told me, but when you run into him with his boyfriend around town... let's just say it's obvious if you pay attention.

As a raging heterosexual and former Marine Officer..... Be a fucking man and deal with it.

Other Comments by Bremas

23. Comment #27594 by tomjlawson on March 25, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Homosexuality is genetic, as is bi-sexuality. Some animals can spontaneously change sex to accomodate procreation where there is a shortage of partners, and it's safe to assume that the hard-wiring of this trait remains in humans, but that humans have either lost the physical abilities or never had them at all, although hermaphrodites may be a by-product of this earlier ability or a failed mutation to develop it.

Hermaphrodites usually have to choose a sex, then they're given steroids and surgery to complete the process. This does not guarantee that they'll feel completely male or completely female. It's mainly cosmetic. This transformation is more for societal acceptance rather than personal reasons.

It's interesting to note that hermaphrodites are not mentioned in the bible. Hermaphroditism is a gray area, and gray areas are not common in the black and white world of the bible. By this fact, Christians should be okay with physical bi-sexuals, but not okay with someone that feels bi-sexual, for "a man shall not lie with another man." A question for a fundie: If a hermaphrodite "chooses" to be a woman, has surgery to make it so, but cannot reproduce, should she be able to get married and adopt? If the answer is "yes" then the argument against homosexuality is moot, for the physical limitations are not related to sexual attraction. The hermaphrodite could have easily become a man and fallen for a man. If the answer is "no" because the whole thing sounds un-natural, then where does it end? Banning infertile couples from marrying because they cannot reproduce? No, because marriage is between a man and a woman, right?

The true question is why homosexuality is called a sin in the first place. It's not because it makes you feel icky, or that it just doesn't look right. Obviously it is a sin for the sheer reason that it hinders life. For an island with nothing but homosexuals would eventually become uninhabited. God wants fruitfulness and multiplication. But where god has failed, look to science to help that island.

Cloning technology will inevitably make reproduction possible for gay couples, as well as sterile couples. This may be the true reason behind the fundies' opposition to it, besides the fact that it steps on god's foot. If life is no longer halted by the lack of natural reproduction, like it is now with In Vitro Fertilisation, will the sin still exist? Or will it be seen as cheating and un-natural? Children born from IVF and fertility drugs might not think so.

And if the sin of halting life is gone, and you still feel icky, well, that's your problem. I, personally, cannot stand to see someone eat a raw tomato, but I have no reason to stop them. When your literary reason ceases to exist, and you see two men kissing in public, your only option is to celebrate the power of love or find something else to look at.

Other Comments by tomjlawson

24. Comment #27599 by tomjlawson on March 25, 2007 at 2:44 pm

DavidJMH says:

"Again, homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle; it is a mental sickness, a physical perversion and a social vice...The only upside about homosexuality, is the lack of maturity and cowardliness exhibited by adherents is not passed into the genetic pool."

I'll have you know that mental illness IS passed into offspring and the genetic pool. Manic-depressives have manic-depressive children, schizophrenics can give their children schizophrenia, etctera. Homosexuals rarely get their "illness" from their homosexual parents, so if it isn't a mental illness, what is it? Good try, though...

Other Comments by tomjlawson

25. Comment #27601 by mardigan71 on March 25, 2007 at 2:59 pm

I had this same "delimma" when I was younger. I've always known that I was gay, but unfortunately was raised in a fundamentalist christian family. It was very confusing to be told by my parents, church elders, preacher, etc. (people whom you *thought* knew what they were talking about) that homosexuals were demon possessed. I wasted a lot of time praying to god to make me straight. It never happened, of course, because there was no one there to hear me.

I couldn't understand why god would create someone intentionally to damn them to hell. It makes perfect sense to me now that I no longer believe in god. But back when my life was saturated with religion, it was psychologically damaging.

Mental illness, did someone say? The only mental illness stemming from homosexuality is the damage resulting from societal and religious ignorance.

Other Comments by mardigan71

26. Comment #27604 by DavidJGrossman on March 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm

DavidJMH, you're sick fuck.

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

27. Comment #27609 by Eventhorizon on March 25, 2007 at 4:20 pm

DavidJMH
With regards to DavidJMH - Is it me or is he a seriously repressed homosexual?
There was an experiment done - in Georgia I think - that basically found that the more homophobic somebody was the more they were aroused by homosexual pornography.
Maybe this guy lives somewhere where its not easy to be gay but there are loads of websites and help groups, he just needs to make the first move. I hope he does soon and I hope he's ok.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

28. Comment #27610 by BaronOchs on March 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Indeed if you break it down homophobia would literally mean "fear of the same". i.e. homo(same)phobia(fear of).

I concur . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

29. Comment #27614 by Bremas on March 25, 2007 at 4:43 pm

I just got done writing a lengthy and slightly venomous statement about gays in the military and Gen Pace's comments. It didn't "take" and it's not worth rewriting in full.. To sum up:

I know a lot of people who know and or have worked for Gen Pace. He seems to have the respect of a lot of people that I respect. I heard his comments as a "I was 'taught' this" statement. In my mind a step in the right direction from where he stood in 92. An admission, if you will, that it was a learned belief. I could be wrong as I only shook his hand once. Enough of that.

Second Point: The military is a reflection of society. Nothing more. And that is how I believe it should be in order to function. Please (and I don't see anyone doing it here) don't make out the organization, that many gays are freely (not openly) serving in right now, to be inherently evil. Change society first, and the military will willingly follow. That is how it works in a free society. The military is under increased moral pressure from the fundies just like everyone else.

Other Comments by Bremas

30. Comment #27618 by mjwemdee on March 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm

I'm curious to know where DavidJMH got all those zoological certitudes from? Where is his evidence?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

31. Comment #27620 by Veronique on March 25, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I'm sorry I can't take much of this seriously. Ridicule and mustard seem better.

Agkistrodon - I love Wholly Babble. I have never heard it before (I'm a sheltered girl). May I adopt it please? Interestingly and possibly aprocryphally, the reason lesbianism was never made illegal in the UK was because Queen Victoria couldn't envisage how it would work or what pleasure could be derived.

DavidJMH - here you go again. Now we all know that homosexuality and other licentious, outrageous sexual behaviour is what brought down the Roman Empire:)(how do you get a smiley face in here?) so why worry about the old USA.

The pathway to destruction is littered with hedonistic behaviour. Sit back, relax, have a cup of tea and think of a ribald joke or two.

While I am not intimately acquainted with the sexual habits of all primates &/or opther species, my guess would be that sex is sex is sex and then there's procreation. Certainly observable in blokes of all species with external little bits. Not sure about worms though.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

32. Comment #27622 by RonnieG on March 25, 2007 at 5:37 pm

I went to elementary school in northern Virginia with a Cleland Welton about 14-16 years ago. Could this be the same Cleland? That would be a really cool coincidence.

Other Comments by RonnieG

33. Comment #27635 by BT Murtagh on March 25, 2007 at 9:28 pm

DavidJMH claims: "Homosexuality, once accepted as the norm by a society, is a precursor to inevitable decline. History shows this to be the case and every civilization which ignores this rule does so at it's peril. This rule has nothing the do with religion, it is a proven evolutionary fact, no matter how unpalatable it may be to some".

I'd be genuinely interested in seeing a justification for this bald statement, but I doubt you have one. Since every society other than those still extant have by definition declined, whether or not they accepted homosexuality, and since some which are still extant do accept homosexuality, how do you isolate that attitude in particular as a precursor to destruction?

Since you claim it is a "proven evolutionary fact", let's see your evidence. I thought I was doing a fair job keeping up with the applications of evolutionary thought to anthropology and sociology (I've never met an evolutionary historian), but I can't say I've even seen it put forward as a serious scientific hypothesis, in any discipline.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

34. Comment #27644 by Shuggy on March 26, 2007 at 12:46 am

DavidJMH wrote:

"Humans innately know this to be true too and the western world, led by the hedonistic USA, is headed down the path to destruction because it has become too self indulgent and decadent to recognize it."

As a gay man living happily and morally with my husband, David, I hope the plane you fly, and the building you fly it into, don't have any other people in them.

Other Comments by Shuggy

35. Comment #27657 by mmurray on March 26, 2007 at 2:34 am

I don't understand the theological problem. God clearly likes to make some peoples lives more challenging than others. Very young children get cancer, some people are born with intellectual and physical disabilities, some people have extra chromosones and a higher tendency to commit violent crime. God clearly likes to make it harder for some people to choose not be sinners. God knows why.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

36. Comment #27664 by Logicel on March 26, 2007 at 3:46 am

tomjlawson wrote, "I, personally, cannot stand to see someone eat a raw tomato,..."
_________

Try a little un-aversion therapy--line your bedroom walls with pictures of Jessica Alba munching a juicy, whole, raw tomato straight from her delectable hands. (:-)

Other Comments by Logicel

37. Comment #27708 by Jonathan Dore on March 26, 2007 at 8:26 am

Indeed at the time the 'scientific' consensus amongst the liberal elite [Hume, A. Huxley, Wells] was that some races were superior to others (which of course could have some scientific basis - we may want all races to be equal but what if there was empirical evidence - as these men thought- that one race was superior?). Thankfully men like William Wilberforce and many other Christians accepted the biblical teaching that all human beings were created equally in the image of God and that therefore there was no basis for discrimination. I'm glad that science has (mostly) caught up...

David, your memory is rather selective. Abolitionism was part of a general Enlightenment movement that brought the best out of the Christian position, not a Christian movement that pulled the Enlightenment along with it. I offer for consideration a couple of paragraphs of Steven Weinberg on the subject:

It is certainly true that the campaign against slavery and the slave trade was greatly strengthened by devout Christians, including the Evangelical layman William Wilberforce in England and the Unitarian minister William Ellery Channing in America. But Christianity, like other great world religions, lived comfortably with slavery for many centuries, and slavery was endorsed in the New Testament. So what was different for anti-slavery Christians like Wilberforce and Channing? There had been no discovery of new sacred scriptures, and neither Wilberforce nor Channing claimed to have received any supernatural revelations. Rather, the eighteenth century had seen a widespread increase in rationality and humanitarianism that led others -� for instance, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan -� also to oppose slavery, on grounds having nothing to do with religion. Lord Mansfield, the author of the decision in Somersett's Case, which ended slavery in England (though not its colonies), was no more than conventionally religious, and his decision did not mention religious arguments. Although Wilberforce was the instigator of the campaign against the slave trade in the 1790s, this movement had essential support from many in Parliament like Fox and Pitt, who were not known for their piety. As far as I can tell, the moral tone of religion benefited more from the spirit of the times than the spirit of the times benefited from religion.

Where religion did make a difference, it was more in support of slavery than in opposition to it. Arguments from scripture were used in Parliament to defend the slave trade. Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion.

(The whole article, entitled "A Designer Universe?", can be read at www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm).

Your remark was also somewhat achronological -- "At the time" ... but which time was that? Wilberforce and Hume were (just) contemporaries, but both were a century before Wells and Huxley, and in the intervening century, of course, Darwinism had rather radically changed understanding of human origins. In the 20th century, if science hadn't finally shown the fundamental genetic unity of all humans, many among the religious might still be making "children of Ham" arguments to justify discrimination -- and what would you have to argue with against them, except positing your favourite bible verses in opposition to theirs, with no objective basis on which to choose between them? You seem strangely unmoved by the vast expansion in the frame of reference of human understanding that evolution and genetics have brought about. For you, it seems, knowing the scientific truth of human origins is a matter of indifference.

What if some races really were inferior to others? An interesting question. The moral imperative to treat each other equally would still be there, based on the moral instincts we have evolved with (originating from close kinship relationships and now a hardwired response to all humans, and even many non-humans), available to all whether religious or not, and the foundation of whatever worthwhile morality religion has, and falsely claims as its own invention.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

38. Comment #27729 by MiloC on March 26, 2007 at 11:15 am

They glorified [God] not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened....

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is agaisnt nature; And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:21, 26-27 KJV

This is the only place in the Bible where a specific mention is made of female homosexuality. Paul is also claiming that the punishement for those who do not worship God properly is homosexuality! He is claiming that it is not a sickness or a result of choice but a punishment for sin. So even the Bible sees it as not a choice! For the readers, I am not agreeing with what Paul is saying here. I am just pointing out how ridiculous it all is.

Other Comments by MiloC

39. Comment #28031 by freestateofmind on March 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Surely DavidJMH is joking!!! I just love it when folks throw the old "homosexuality is the cause of a nation's downfall" card. Absolutely amazing. Let's investigate.
Homosexuality existed in Rome for many centuries while they prospered. Yet Rome fell LESS than century after adopting Chrisitianity. Hmm. Now...tell me which of the two caused the downfall of that empire.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

40. Comment #28123 by MagratGarlick on March 28, 2007 at 4:54 am

The Wee Flea - we may want all races to be equal but what if there was empirical evidence - as these men thought- that one race was superior?

How can you have 'empirical evidence' that something is 'superior' to something else? 'Superior' is a subjective value judgment, not an objective, empirical one.

You can empirically determine that members of one race are different from those of another, e.g. taller, but which race is therefore 'superior' depends on the subjective value you place on the quality in which they differ. If you value tallness over shortness, then the taller race is 'superior', but if you value shortness over tallness, then the shorter race is 'superior'.

Empirical evidence only tells you which is tallest. It can't tell you which is 'superior'. That is a subjective judgment.

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

41. Comment #28335 by Old Coppernose on March 28, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Comment #27594 by tomjlawson on March 25, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Homosexuality is genetic, as is bi-sexuality.

A considerable overstatement. For a long time I was a member of a professional sexologists' forum, and homosexuality was often discussed. Let us take male homosexuality first. While there is evidence of a genetic component, there is another stronger indicator: older brothers. The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. While a psychodynamic process might be involved, more likely it is a result of some kind of acquired immune response by the mother that prevents testosterone from fully masculinizing the brain in utero. Lesbianism has bee less closely researched, but physiological measurement of the ears of lesbians (apparently) suggest hormonal factors in utero may also be responsible. Female sexuality is thought to be more 'plastic' and women more inherently bisexual than men.In contrast, there is a coinsiderable discourse suggesting that male bisexuality is very rare or even non-existent. This is imo driven at least in part by gay activism that likes to characterise men as either "Gay, Straight or Liars" the actual title of a long thread in that forum. I have known a man with many women partners who insisted that he was simply gay and that any man was either gay or straight. Apart from men who are "in denial" it is suggested that there are some very highly sexed men who are really basically gay or staight but are so highly sexed they will seek experiences with either sex - these are called "omnisexuals". I somewhat fit this description myself, but I resent the political correctness of the gay movement that calls bisexual men liars and hence sometimes self-identify as bisexual to smoke out bigot monosexuals of either persuasion (and there are plenty of both). To deny male biseuality is like denying intersex conditions and transexualism - if not homosexuality itself. If I identify as omnisexual no-one knows wtf I am talking about. A friend of mine reports similar hostility to bisexual women from some lesbians.

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

42. Comment #28548 by carlitas on March 29, 2007 at 5:06 pm

I am pre-disposed to the hormonal theory of sexual orientation. I am an itersexed person who was brought up as a girl (46XY genetically with 5a Reductase Deficiency if you must know). I was likely exposed to normal male quantities of testoserone in utero and later during puberty before my testicles were removed (that's a whole other story).

I feel testosterone at puberty affected my sexual orientation. It certainly led to changes in the way my brain worked, how active and agressive I was and my desire to avoid shopping.

The most important issue to me surrounding my sexuality for people to understand that who a person loves and how we honor our sexuality is far more important than what genders are involved. The same goes for whether genetics, upbringing or hormonal influences leads to same gender attraction and love.

Other Comments by carlitas

Reload Comments | Back to Top