The false parallel between interracial and same-sex marriage

One of the chief tactics in the advocacy of same-sex marriage legalization is to point out the supposed parallel with interracial marriage bans.  I recently had two separate exchanges on the topic and this argument was the centerpiece of the discussion.  The argument is basically that discriminating based upon racial preference is really no different than discriminating based upon gender preference, and since we all now agree that interracial marriage is morally acceptable and should be legal, then there is really no moral or legal precedent for denying same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the argument has merit, but it depends upon the premise that race and gender are categorically the same – that two people of the same sex are socially and functionally the same as a man and woman of different races.  I’d like to show now that this is a false premise, and that the parallel between race and gender is only superficial and ignores the profound categorical difference between the two.

For my purposes I’ll take the liberty of distilling the featural differences between the races down to color, which seems uncontroversial since it is a common way of characterizing race.  This should be satisfactory unless one holds to the notion that the races are fundamentally different in some way other than superficial variations in appearance.  To disagree would seem to put one on the road of racism.

Let me begin with an analogy.  If I have a variety of black & white bolts and nuts, which is more meaningful to the nature of nuts and bolts: pairing two of the same color or pairing a nut and a bolt, no matter what the color?  In other words, is it really comparable to say that mixing colors in my nut/bolt sets is equivalent to mixing what two objects I make a set out of, e.g., two bolts?  We may certainly choose to make sets based upon color, but this is only done at the expense of the basic design purpose and the functional difference between nuts and bolts.

This analogy seeks to illustrate the categorical difference between appearance (color) and physical design.  Yes, gender is more complicated than nuts and bolts, and marriage is more than just fitting them together, but the argument being made by same-sex advocates is specifically making a parallel between color and gender, so any meaningful physical differences between the genders would seem to erode the argument.

There is indeed a fundamental difference between the sexes that transcends the superficiality of color differences – a difference upon which the very human species depends.  If your parents were black and white (or any other color combination) they could still have had you, but if they did not have nuts and bolts (so to speak), and had not employed them as designed, then that would have been the end of it (and of you).  Of course, there is always adoption or artificial insemination for those who insist on pairing “bolt” with “bolts” or “nut” with “nuts,” but these ultimately depend upon the intervention and services of the other gender.  By contrast, interracial couples lacked for nothing but acceptance.

Color is a functionally meaningless attributes, whereas there is no more fundamental differentiator among humans than gender.  In fact, you cannot even claim to represent humanity without offering an example of each as was done with the Pioneer Plaque.  If race were indeed equivalent to gender, then they could just as well have chosen to depict two men of different colors; or if gender were as inconsequential as race, then they could simply have presented a man on the plaque and left it at that.

To disagree with my categorical distinction is to suggest that color is just as important to sexual desire as gender.  But who has heard a heterosexual man say that he would rather have another man of the same race than a woman of a different race?  And the criterion for homosexuality seems to be a preference for the same gender no matter the color.  Gays themselves affirm that gender is the main thing – it is what defines homosexuality.  I have never heard of such a thing, but perhaps there is the odd fetishist out there who prefers some particular race above all gender considerations, but I think it is safe to say that gender is in a categorically different place from color.  Scientists seem to agree with me, since they rank color considerations as the least important factor in defining species, genus, family, etc.  Just image how absurd it would be to claim that grouping cardinals, tomatoes, and rubies because of color is just as meaningful as grouping them by categories of animal, vegetable, and mineral.

The upshot is that race and gender are categorically different things, where the categories are of different consequence and relevance to the institution of marriage.  Color is a mere cosmetic property, whereas gender relates to a physical distinction that has always been the prerequisite of marital unions and is necessary for the families that result.  Interracial marriage bans were primarily about maintaining racial purity, which presupposes the success of a traditional marriage that is based upon the foundation of gender distinctions.  Traditional marriage is about bringing the two distinct genders into a committed, loving relationship resulting in an unparalleled union that is truly and fully human.

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” (Jesus, quoting Genesis 2:24, from Matthew 19:4-5)

Born in the Wrong Body

I have a family friend (college age now) who is a female but has always been rather androgynous, if not downright boyish, in her dress and behavior. There has never been any talk or hint (that I've perceived) of homosexual tendencies, but things have taken a dramatic turn in the last year.

Her idle thoughts of identification with the opposite sex have turned to ideas that she ought to be the other sex. And this has been exacerbated by the fact that she's had her first infatuation: with another woman. Since she insists that she's not gay she's now thinking that a sex change is the solution to her problem.

This is an unusual situation — "unnatural" from my frame of reference — and I believe she knows this. I say that because her rationale for seeking a sex change is not something so neutral as, "It's just what I feel like doing." If having a sex change is a morally neutral action, like changing a hairstyle or buying a car, then there's no need of a defense. If you've got the means and desire, just do it, and anyone who's got a grievance against it is just expressing a personal distaste.

This, however, is not the way she's handling the decision. Instead, she states a rationale — one loaded with metaphysical overtones; one that implies the working out of an ultimate justice and design. She claims that she was "born in the wrong body."

The "wrong body," imagine that! It would seem that someone or something has made a mistake. Now, she's a bright person, but I'm not sure she means for such a statement to be closely scrutinized (though the world would certainly be less shallow and vulgar if people said only what they meant); it is just a thing that people commonly say in this situation. But if she does not really mean this, then why not state the real rationale? Let's give this reason the benefit of the doubt and take it as a serious idea. What can it mean, then?

The first thing to notice is that she has said "I" was born in the wrong body. This would seem to imply a form of body-soul dualism. If an "I" can be in a wrong body, or if "I"s are inserted into bodies at all, then this implies that there is a self that is independent from such things as bodies with genders. This makes sense in a theistic worldview, which believes in such things as souls. It also makes sense in an Eastern mystical view, which holds to the transmigration of the soul from one life and body to the next. But there are two problems with this idea where she's concerned.

First, if her soul has been intentionally inserted into a body, then is it possible to claim that a mistake has been made? Just exactly who has made the mistake?

If you are a theist, then you hold to a god's involvement in the grand scheme of soul making and destiny shaping. If you are born a particular sex and you believe that God has anything at all to do with that fact, then it would seem that no matter what your particular feelings are about your state that you are spitting in your maker's face to seek a change. Now there may certainly be congenital diseases and deformities that we seek to remedy due to the nature of living in a corruptible, material (even fallen) world — this is not heaven after all — but changing a perfectly functional body into something foreign is a categorically different proposition.

If you are more Eastern in your spiritual outlook, then you hold to some form of reincarnation. This certainly makes bodies and souls a much more dynamic association, but there is still a purpose and order to it. For Hindus and New Agers, your particular circumstances are a working out of the law of Karma. Whatever blessings or trials you are faced with are simply your just desserts for the deeds of former incarnations. So, for instance, if you find yourself feeling like a man trapped in a woman's body, it might be because you were a male chauvinist in a former life. While this may give a rationale for one's situation, it does not give a reason for escaping it. Anything not addressed in this life will simply be postponed for a future date. On this model, changing one's sex seems equivalent to ending one's own life; it's like saying, "I can't take this, I want out." Buddhism's view of the soul is a bit more complex, but its view of the physical world and self as "illusion" make worrying about your body enough to want to change it a sort of denial of the whole system.

Second, this person fancies herself something of an atheist. To remain consistent with this portrait of the world she must reject the idea that there is any self apart from her physical body. She simply is what she is; there is no "wrong" or "mistake" about it, because there is no one to have made a mistake and no design or purpose to have gone awry. If nature is all that is involved here then how can you really be something that you are not? By whatever cause, the fact is that she is female and it is only her feelings about that fact which are at issue.

But your feelings about a thing mean nothing about the thing itself. They do not make reality and, in fact, are notoriously abused in the pursuit of fantasies. To say that you ought to have been a thing because you feel partial to the thing is to make reasonable many absurd ideas, like, "I feel as though I should have been a cat," or, "I am really an amputee trapped in a body with 4 limbs." By purely materialistic standards, it makes as little sense to say that you are really a cat, or an amputee, or a walnut, as it does to say that you are a different gender. It is as far away to Oz as it is to Neverland.

If what you are and what you think you are happen to be out of harmony, then there is indeed something wrong with the person. But which is more reasonable to seek to manipulate: the thing or the feelings about the thing; reality or the recognition of the reality? Why is it that feelings trump all other considerations? Neither God, nature, nor reason can stand before them. True, you may have mixed feelings for your home or car and seek to change those things, but those are the kinds of transient, external things that are made to suit personal tastes. It is only modern science that even begins to allow us to entertain the extreme idea of gender shopping.

One last point to ponder: Thinking that you really ought to be the opposite sex implies that you think that you feel like that sex. But how would one be confident in knowing what the other sex felt like? If you are not the other sex, then there is a very good chance that there is a subjective difference which you could never experience or even imagine unless you were by nature one of the gang. There may be some stereotypical behavioral elements with which you identify, or some affinity for different biological equipment, but there is a perceptual element that may never be achieved no matter how much gender dress-up and social engineering is affected. If you pave your driveway with yellow bricks and paint your house emerald green are you really in Oz, or are you just indulging a fantasy?

Why Not Condemn the "Heart Attack" Lifestyle?

Wherein SWMNT again presses me to further support my arguments against homosexuality, first presented in this article: Is Homosexuality a Dysfunction?, and continued in this one: If Homosexuality is a Dysfunction, Why the Condemnation?.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the case, but it seems to me that health risks are being used to condemn a behavior as part of a justification for deeming it immoral. If that's the case, it seems to me that there are many behaviors ahead of homosexual related diseases that are more deserving of being labeled "immoral." It's not that we celebrate the "Heart Attack" lifestyle, it's that we don't define as immoral the behaviors related to it.

I think the two issues are being confused here: the moral case against it and the health case — perhaps my own fault for working both angles. The problem is that if one has no problems with sex-on-demand, no concept of how human relations ought to be structured, and no belief in an objective purpose and moral order for humans, then it becomes difficult to argue a strictly moral case for homosexuality itself. In this case, I must resort to a merely pragmatic approach to evaluating whether it is a prudent thing to do or encourage. Although, if it can be agreed that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, then perhaps it could still be agreed to be "immoral" by some secular standard.

The kinds of health risks are different in many cases for homosexuality than for heart disease. For heart disease it is a matter of poor diet and exercise (to simplify it), which may (or may not) lead inch-by-inch to a problem. But with homosexuality it is more like playing Russian roulette, since any one encounter could result in a sexually transmitted disease, some of which are devastating. It's more meaningful to say, "don't go to bed with that stranger, you might get AIDS" than it is to say, "don't eat that cheese cake, you might have a coronary failure."

It is also not a matter of saying that a bowl of ice cream or a chilidog are intrinsically bad. Our bodies are capable of processing such things in moderation. But there are things about homosexuality that the body was not "designed" to handle with grace, like anal sex. And moderation regarding singularly high-risk behaviors only reduces the number of bullets in the roulette chamber rather than being an ideal preventative measure as with heart health. And I won't even go into any related psycho-social issues, which would be difficult to find parallel in a mere laxity in dietary substance.

Of course we don't affirm those who are couch potatoes and eat burgers and fries for every meal, but I will admit to never having seen Jerry Falwell campaign against saturated fats and cholesterol. It is not that it is considered a virtue in the Christian community; indeed, I would say that abusing your body in this or any other way would be deemed sinful by any theologian that I can think of. However, I do know that James Dobson has dedicated shows to health concerns like this in addition to his shows on sexual issues; and even LifeWay has product lines devoted to health and fitness.

Christianity not only frowns upon the abuse of the body, through dietary means or otherwise, you will actually find numerous Christian ministries dedicated to the cause of health. Of course, there are a few ministries dedicated to serving homosexual causes, but the difference is that the health ministries are not picketed and accused of hate speech and bigotry. Here's a choice example of this, and a choice excerpt:

"If anyone deserves a plague of Biblical proportions right now, it's the Radical Right," said Avenger Liz Harris. Five Avengers stormed the organization's headquarters, carrying signs proclaiming "Queer Love Is Not A Disease," and chanting "Exodus, stop your hate and fear! Help like yours is killing queers!" Once inside, the activists climbed onto the reception desk, shouted "We don't need to be cured," and released 1,000 "locusts" (crickets) in an attempt to shut the operation down.

The thing is, this health cause is already taken up by the culture. Watch any secular talk show long enough or go to any bookstore and you will find a mountain of items on this subject. Christians do not necessarily need to preach the immorality of the heart attack lifestyle; it is already assumed by the culture. In fact, it is almost a morbid obsession in some quarters. It is a bit like the environmentalist movement. Christians should be, and are, concerned about the earth (in a balanced way), but we have little need to jump on a bandwagon that is already swarming with nutballs. Unfortunately, they have managed to turn us off so badly that many Christians don't even want the stigma of being thought of as an "environmentalists," even though that would not technically be a bad thing, and we have as much cause as any to lead that charge.

Your general point, though, is noted and should serve as an indictment of all those Christians who have their Burger King butts parked in their lazy-boys mocking Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. It's a wonder that some of us can see well enough to aim our fingers with the kinds of planks found in our eyes.

James Rachels: The Question of Homosexuality

This post is a reply to an excerpt from James Rachels' book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, which was posted on the Smooinaghey blog for my consideration. Here are my thoughts:

More than one gay writer has said that homosexuality is not about who you have sex with; it’s about who you fall in love with.

Well, I guess you can define yourself however you like, and I don't doubt their need for love and relationship, only how it is channeled. But I have to wonder if the prevailing atmosphere of promiscuity (e.g., one-night stands and a liberal view of "monogamy") is just a matter of desperately looking for "love" or a drive to satiate a compulsion. It seems to me, though, that sex is one of the main differentiators between homosexuality and heterosexuality. If this were not so, then Jeff and I could qualify as homosexuals, because of our great platonic "love" for one another. (Sorry Jeff, and those bear hugs make me really nervous sometimes ;)

Moreover, individuals do not choose their sexual orientations ... Thus to say that people should not express their homosexuality is, more often than not, to condemn them to unhappy lives.

I don't mean to be trite, but it occurs to me that I have many desires/orientations that I did not choose, but which I must deny. I would like to be a millionaire but I must resist the compulsion to rob. I have the need for power and fame, but I find I must settle for the mediocrity that I deserve. I am married, but I am sexually orientated to the idea of having every attractive woman I see. And I prefer young women, but my wife is aging every day. Am I obligated to actualize every one of my desires? I think it is understood that some desires can be wrong or extreme, and we incarcerate people daily for acting upon these.

It seems to me that the answer to this question lays not in having the desire, as James seems to be arguing, but in whether or not that desire is an acceptable one. If homosexuality is morally neutral (judged by whatever means), then there is no discussion here, go for it; but if not, then no amount of desire for it makes it appropriate.

If it could be shown that gays and lesbians pose some sort of threat to the rest of society, that would be a powerful argument for the other side. . . . Apart from the nature of their sexual relationships, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their moral characters or in their contributions to society.

First of all, it should be pointed out that James neglects the health controversy in favor of the moral and social point. This is unfortunate, since there are some grounds for debating the "threat to the rest of society" from this perspective.

Second, if you get to define your own criteria for "moral character" and "contributions," then you can make anyone look good. I think James would like to confine it to getting an education, holding a good job, and providing some creative output. I certainly have great reservations in claiming that homosexuals are any more "evil" than any other random population group, but from what I have been able to glean, they at least represent a different kind of culture. This difference seems to include a much higher level of casual sex, recreational drug use, and a raft of psycho-medical ailments. Now, perhaps James denies this, or perhaps he thinks this a morally neutral observation; but if it is true and we think it a shame, then he cannot say that there is no moral difference between the two. The fact that they may make meaningful "contributions" to society in the area of economics, art, and politics would be beside this point.

However, if gay sex were condemned for [functional reasons], a host of other sexual practices would also be condemned: masturbation, oral sex, and even sex by women after menopause.

And so maybe we should think about these things as well, I dunno. But James simply assumes that it is ridiculous to even go there, and uses that presupposition as a form of evidence for his case. So, is he arguing from our moral intuitions that these things are okay, or is he simply leveraging some sacred cows to make his point? Either way, he's got a problem.

The “purpose” of the eyes is to see; is it therefore wrong to use one’s eyes for flirting or for giving a signal? Again, the “purpose” of the fingers may be grasping and poking; is it therefore wrong to snap one’s fingers to keep time with music?

I find these to be very bad examples. Flirting and signaling involves more than the eye and a corruption of "sight" to accomplish, and it's difficult to flirt with what you cannot see. And as to the hand, he makes a spurious assertion that it is merely for "grasping and poking."

James' argument at this point misses the larger concept of sexual/gender teleology. It is not just that the penis and vagina are instruments for reproduction, it is all the things that are implied by that fact, i.e., that the owners of those instruments are made for each other and that reproduction leads to family, which has certain social ramifications. The state has always understood this — especially that the state itself is dependent on the family, which is the whole reason that the state would have any concern at all about this kind of private relationship.

The word unnatural has a sinister sound, it might be understood simply as a term of evaluation. Perhaps it means something like “contrary to what a person ought to be.” But if that is what “unnatural” means, then to say that something is wrong because it is unnatural would be vacuous. It would be like saying thus-and-so is wrong because it is wrong.

Either I don't get this argument, or it's a bad one, or he's just trying to dodge the larger question of teleology. Seems like he's got the distillation of the idea wrong. I think it would more accurately be stated as this: "Thus-and-so is wrong because it is contrary to what a person ought to be." And if we "ought" to be some way, then not being that way is ipso facto wrong. Of course, he can always argue that there is no particular way that we "ought" to be (because there's no God or objective moral order in the universe), but he hasn't even stated that assertion, much less defended it. Indeed, his whole essay appears to presuppose relativism, which would, ironically, mean that it's not "wrong" to suppress homosexuality.

The problem is that you cannot conclude that homosexuality is an abomination simply because it says so in Leviticus unless you are willing to conclude, also, that these other instructions are moral requirements; and in the 21st century anyone who tried to live according to all those rules would go crazy.

It is way too early for you and I to have a theological discussion on this, but it is clear that James is not familiar with the Christian response to this. Now, a Jew, not having the lens of the Messiah through which to see the Old Testament, has a much more difficult road in answering these kinds of theological objections. However, it is interesting to note that James chooses to quote from the Old Testament vs. the New Testament condemnations of homosexuality. And I might also point out that the Leviticus passage is sandwiched between the prohibitions against bestiality and child sacrifice. Yeah, let's just throw it all out categorically.

In any case, nothing can be morally right or wrong simply because an authority says so. If the precepts in a scared text are not arbitrary, there must be some reason for them—we should be able to ask why the Bible condemns homosexuality, and expect an answer.

Maybe he'd like to step up to the throne of God and demand an accounting on this one. I can see him now: "God, you need to explain to me why homosexuality is wrong before I'll change my moral position. Why must I assume that just because men and women are anatomically and psychosocially constructed in a complementary fashion that we are obligated to behave in a way consistent with that fact? And make it a good reason, because if it doesn't jive with my own higher moral standards I am honor-bound to reject it."

But the main point here is not about homosexuality. The main point concerns the nature of moral thinking. Moral thinking and moral conduct are a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. But being guided by reason is very different from following one’s feelings. When we have strong feelings, we may be tempted to ignore reason and go with the feelings. But in doing so, we would be opting out of moral thinking altogether. That is why, in focusing on attitudes and feelings, Ethical Subjectivism seems to be going in the wrong direction.

That's weird: this closing paragraph seems to work more in my favor than his, especially since he begins the essay by grounding the whole issue on the homosexual's "strong feelings." Observe:

The most pertinent fact is that homosexuals are pursuing the only way of life that affords them a chance of happiness. Sex is a particularly strong urge—it isn’t hard to understand why—and few people are able to fashion a happy life without satisfying their sexual needs.

I think what he would be forced to argue is that the homosexual's strong feelings trump the strong feelings of their objectors. Unfortunately, there are more objectors than homosexuals.

If Homosexuality is a Dysfunction, Why the Condemnation?

An astute commenter has encouraged me to take my thinking in this article to the next level. In the original article, I make the case for homosexuality being a psychological dysfunction — the product of negative environmental factors in childhood. I am then asked why we should blame or condemn the victim if it is no different from other things that could be the result of a medical condition or upbringing. Why not condemn the physically disabled too? Here are my further thoughts:

There are certainly many other parallels to homosexuality (as a consequence of environmental factors). Some are directly analogous, like alcoholism and abusiveness, and some are not so directly parallel, like asthma and HIV. The distinction between the two is a matter of direct, unmediated, involuntary causality. For example, if a parent hit his child in the head with a baseball bat the child may well receive brain damage. There is a direct causal connection which the child had no hand in processing, reacting to, affirming, or reinforcing.

With alcoholism (assuming an environmental influence), the connection is not determinative, like the bat against the head. It is a matter of conditioning, which requires the child to respond to his upbringing in a way which is not guaranteed to result in alcoholism. He could manage to rise above it, commit suicide, become a criminal, become homosexual, or become an alcoholic. And if he does become an alcoholic, it does not mean that beer gets into the car, goes to his house, and jumps into his mouth. There is volition (will and action) involved, unlike with brain damage. The mentally defective child does not have a desire to be brain damaged, which he acts upon, rationalizes, and surrenders to.

So, in this sense at least, we should be able to see a distinction between those problems for which we could find personal guilt and those for which the person is a wholly passive "victim." But the other problem is that nobody's on a crusade to normalize and celebrate things like brain damage and alcoholism (other than nutburgers like this). If it turns out that homosexuality is indeed a dysfunction, as it once was understood to be (having been declassified as a result of political pressure), then this would pull the rug out from under the gay advocates. And therein lies my main theme.

I (and I am not alone here as a Christian) am not suggesting that persons with this dysfunction are hell-bound simply because they have homosexual compulsions. We all have sinful compulsions for gosh sakes. I am suggesting that it is wrong to celebrate this dysfunction, to normalize it as just another valid (even "God-given") lifestyle, to belittle those who want out of it, and to encourage youth to explore this path if they feel so inclined. Indeed, this path is being paved and lighted for all those children who are sufferers of those environmental factors that may potentially develop into some sort of dysfunction. If we can first admit that it is a dysfunction, it seems that a number of conclusions and responses naturally follow from there. And that is exactly why such a conclusion is being fought so ferociously by the gay community, who seem to enjoy their dysfunction, just as many alcoholics do.

My commenter then goes on to ask why is it important that homosexuality be defined as a dysfunction, and why it should matter to us personally.

If it is a dysfunction, let us call it a dysfunction, and without all the politics and propaganda. It might even foster more sympathy than hostility by those who have moral concerns with this condition. In fact, I have issues on the other end of the spectrum with Christians who still think of this as nothing more than an arbitrary "choice." It may be helpful for all parties to understand the deep complexities involved in this and why someone might end up going down this particular road as opposed to some other which may yield more sympathies.

As far as why I would care about this, well, first of all, I'd point out that if this really were a problem in one's relationship with God, then I would care by extension of my concern for others. If I really think life has eternal consequences, and I really care about others, then overlooking this issue is a form of spiritual apathy and neglect.

But even if there were no moral/spiritual ramifications, we could still consider the immediate physical concerns. This lifestyle is not without its side effects and consequences — things that not only affect the homosexual but society itself. One might also ask why we should care about cigarette smokers, but society seems to care very much. Since cigarette smoking (and homosexuality) is harmful, then we care about the participants, our youth who might be influenced to take this path, and the impact that it has on the culture-at-large, insurance rates, and healthcare costs. Basically, we care about this if we subscribe to the philosophy of "the public good," which is regularly applied in many other areas of society.

Here is a sampling of the kinds of things that are found in higher levels among the homosexual community:

• Numerous physical health problems (AIDS is just the latest on the scene)
  
• Mental health issues
  
• Risky sexual behavior
  
• Substantial promiscuity
  
• Promiscuity in "monogamous" same-sex relationships (even by consent)
  
• High alcohol and drug use
  
• Domestic abuse
  
• Shorter life-spans
  

Here are some articles that flesh out these talking points. Perhaps a skeptic will not like the sources, but they are at least heavily footnoted from secular journals: Here and here
Here is a list of other articles regarding homosexual health issues: NARTH

It is more difficult to find the same kinds of comprehensive articles on gay health issues from pro-homosexual sources (it's bad press that they'd prefer to avoid), but you can find them candidly discussing their woes here and there: Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3, Sample 4, Sample 5, Sample 6

If it were any other condition bearing such risks and consequences, like cigarette smoking, we would have clamped down the constraints long ago. We would certainly not be working to give it normative status in our culture, crafting laws to prohibit opposition to it, and writing it into our school curriculum as a good and healthy avenue of sexual exploration.

Is Homosexuality a Dysfunction?

(The following is an excerpt from an exchanged I had relating to an article on a gay high school in New York. My response to one of the accusations follows.)

Accusation:

"No one knows yet if homosexuality is genetic or not so for you to say it's a psychological dysfunction is just as insane as anyone saying it's genetic. You have no evidence to support your theory either."

My response:

You seem to be affirming that the genetic link has not been successfully made. I commend you on your honesty and understanding here. So many people blindly swallow the media rhetoric that it has indeed been proven. In fact, the claim, "God made me this way," rests on this spurious conclusion. In light of the idea that "no one knows the facts in this area," it is interesting that gay advocates are willing to reshape society's sexual and marital norms so readily. Ambiguity does not necessarily deliver a victory to this novel ethic, and reshaping our culture is not taking the "neutral" position.

"Dysfunction" is a matter of exception to the "normal" development or behavior of an individual. Since God (or "nature," if you're an atheist) has equipped us to produce and rear children in a male-female context, and most would affirm that this should be a "loving" environment, then "normal" should be whatever that arrangement produces on average. And who will say that it is not "best" for a child to have both an attentive and committed man and woman participate in the child's upbringing. To say otherwise seems a bit sexist and ignores the many supporting studies to the contrary. All this is to say that where love, attention, and/or the mother-father model are absent, we can expect exceptions to occur, i.e., dysfunction or pathologies. These variables would be considered "environmental" or "social" factors.

To say that there is no evidence to support conclusions for dysfunction is to ignore what the "gay gene" studies actually have been successful in concluding. Let's hear what some of the experts are telling us about this condition:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists concludes that "gender identity" disorders "are developmental," and "involve psychological, biological, family and social issues."
(http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0402.htm)

"Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." (Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books)

"There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic—and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public." (Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.)

When "gay gene" researcher Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he himself replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors." ("Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American, November 1995, P. 26.)

And even the notorious Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) tells us in a pamphlet:
"To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."
[My note: it is rather silly for them to say that no genetic link has been found on the one hand, yet on the other hand to include biological factors in what it is "undoubtedly influenced by." My point, though, is that even this gay propaganda machine admits that the only thing that is known is the social factor.]

To this I would add the following observation regarding Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard's famous "twin study." While this study has been swamped in controversy, and has been challenged by subsequent studies (Bailey was, himself, unable to reproduce these high numbers in a later, more comprehensive study), it will serve my purpose as a best-case scenario for the "gay gene" theory (these researchers are friendly to the gay-gene thesis, and observations regarding twins are some of the most tangible and easily grasped comparisons). First, note the following statistics from this study:

• 52 percent of the identical twins were both gay
  
• 22 percent of the fraternal twins were both gay
  
• 9 percent of the non-twin brothers were both gay
  
• 11 percent of the adopted, or genetically unrelated brothers were both gay

This outcome has been seen as suggestive of a genetic link. After all, there's a higher percentage for the identicals than for the siblings sharing lesser genetic material. However, if we look closer we see inconsistencies and strong indicators for environmental factors. First, 50/50 odds are pretty bad for identical DNA. This suggests that the genetic factor (assuming it is there) is not determinative (meaning it doesn't force the condition) and that it can be substantially overridden either by environmental or personal factors. Second, fraternal twins and non-twin brothers are genetically equivalent, but here we see that the figures are substantially different for each group. This suggests environmental dominance, since the unique common denominator with the fraternals is their closely shared upbringing. Third, we should expect to see the figure for adopted siblings to be lower than for any of the direct blood relations, yet it is actually higher than the non-twin brothers! Indeed, the adopted siblings should be expected to fall near the population average for homosexuality, yet they are several times higher than this (2-3 percent is the recognized average). Something is going on in these families that is increasing the odds of homosexual expression in these children.

From every quarter, researchers admit that even if there could be said to be a genetic connection there are still environmental factors involved. Here is what we are left with: genetic factors are possible, but not yet demonstrated, but environmental factors are known to be involved. In light of this, it is curious that the research activity leans toward gene studies at the expense of the environmental ones, yet environmental conditions are things we might actually hope to affect. I smell an agenda, and the researchers Bailey & Pillard are candid enough to tell us why: "If true, a biological explanation is good news for homosexuals and their advocates." But why the heck would that be good new? Would it be "good news" to find out that most lung cancer is a matter of genetics, which can't be easily changed, versus smoking, which one has opportunity to mitigate? There seems to be an a priori commitment to justifying the homosexual "orientation" rather than simply getting to the bottom of the what and why of it. But, of course, that is the approach of a bygone era of psychiatric science not driven by political correctness and advocacy.

So, what can we say about the environmental factors. Do we imagine that they are "good" influences, like having doting parents and a first-class education — that homosexuality is the result of an ideal upbringing? Is the best product of the child-rearing enterprise, in fact, a homosexual? Or, do we discover, as observations do seem to indicate, that it is a matter of less than ideal childhood experiences? Homosexuality, regardless of the "unknown" genetic component, seems to be influenced by negative environmental factors. This implies that those who are victim of this situation are being adversely affected. And this defines psychological dysfunction. It may be a pathology that the victim doesn't mind, or admit (like alcoholism, which supplies the addict with some positive reinforcement), but it is a pathology nonetheless.

And what do we do with pathologies? Do we affirm them and celebrate them? Do we consider them normative and of equal standing to all other behaviors? Do we reengineer society to conform to their particular idiosyncrasies? Of course not! But neither should we denigrate the intrinsic value of the affected persons. The sin is not in being victim of the environmental influences, or even the possible biological contributors; the sin is in pursuing the symptoms, celebrating the condition, rationalizing its merit, and insisting that society give hearty approval to those who do so.

Alcoholic Pride

In one debate over the issue of homosexuality I was able to steer the conclusion to an identification of homosexuality as an "abnormality," whether biological or psychological in origin, all moral judgments aside. I then pointed out that the problem with this condition is that it offers its "sufferer" positive reinforcements; the indulgence of sexual desire, whatever its source or legitimacy, is a powerful motivator. This is not the kind of thing offered with something like a congenital ailment or a phobia. I doubt I'll ever witness a gout pride march or an arachnophobia rights protest in my lifetime.

The thing that seemed most equivalent to homosexuality for me to point out was alcoholism. The alcoholic is typically in denial that he has a problem, gains subjective benefits from indulging his condition, risks health issues in its pursuit, and can always blame it all on genetics or a bad childhood if he is taken to task. The advantage of this analogy is that the dangers and shortcomings of alcoholism are readily admitted by all people, no matter how pleasurable and legal drinking itself may happen to be. Even the alcoholic himself will tend to agree that alcoholism is a bad thing, he usually just denies that he qualifies as one.

Well, it appears that the alcoholism comparison may have less force than I once thought. According to this group of drinkers there is nothing wrong with inebriation as a lifestyle choice. Their spokesman, Frank Rich of Modern Drunkard magazine, says that "it's all about drinking without apology or remorse," and claims that "alcohol makes us better human beings." His magazine extols the [short-term] benefits and pleasures of alcohol consumption, offers community for those of like mind, and attempts to win credibility for their cause by pointing out all the respected and productive alcoholics of history.

Sound hauntingly familiar? But why not use the tactics of the gay activists, they've worked well so far.

How We Know That Sex Is Sacred

Our secular culture has worked very hard to sell us on the idea that there is no particular design or purpose to sexual relationships, consequently, sex may be enjoyed at the discretion of the individual. The only constraints are that it be "responsible" and "safe," and that the participants are "ready" and "willing." Any teleological consideration of its design, such as between a man and woman, or its context, such as in the formal bonds of marriage, have come to be viewed as mere social conventions. And what Scripture has to say on this matter is of no consequence to the pagan mind (and very often to the modern Christian one as well). However, there are very plain "signals of transcendence," as Peter Berger would call them, that there is something very special about the act of sex. Here are several that come to mind.

The heinousness of rape

Witness the testimony of any rape victim and you will notice an overpowering sense of humiliations, emotional distress, and rage. For many of these victims, there is psychological damage that can plague them and their relationships for years to come. These kinds of profound effects are largely absent from almost any other kind of personal crimes, even violent ones. There is something different about sexual crimes -- something personal and sacred that has been violated. And it is something that even promiscuous persons claim to experience.

Imagine two scenarios with the same woman. In one scenario, she is kidnapped at gunpoint, forcibly given a hairstyling and manicure, made to eat ice cream, given a massage, and then sent on her way. Now imagine her to be kidnapped and forced to have sex -- even with an attempt to be gentle and offer pleasure, and using a condom as well -- and then released unharmed. Both of these scenarios deal with things that are potentially pleasurable and, presumably, morally neutral. Both involve lack of consent on the part of the victim. I think I could easily predict that in the first example the victim would come away more mystified than distraught. In the second case, there would be many tears and criminal charges would be sought. But what could be the difference, then, in the eyes of the sexual libertarian? Anything that would be appealed to in order to make the second example different or more abhorrent would begin to make my case.

The infidelity factor

There's nothing that will tear apart a relationship faster than sexual infidelity. A man could work with another woman, see a movie, exercise, or even have a deeply personal conversation with her, but if there is even a hint of sexual overtones to the interaction the spouse will come undone. And it is not just the physical aspect, since many gynecologists have quite successful marriages. It does not even matter if a relationship is outside of a formal commitment, like marriage. An expectation of fidelity is the unspoken assumption among relationships, no matter how transient.

There are certainly exceptions to this rule, where both parties have made some open arrangement, but even then there is often something withheld from outside partners. For example, I was watching a program on this topic where a liberal pastor was discussing her "swinger" lifestyle and she mentioned that she and her husband had chosen to reserve kissing only for each other. "We feel like that is just too personal" was her rationale. This is reminiscent of a line from the movie Pretty Woman where Julia Roberts, who plays a call girl, informs Richard Gere's character that she has a policy of not kissing her clients. What a strange upside-down sexual ethic this is! The very thing that we hardly bat an eye at when done by adolescents becomes a measure of fidelity for the promiscuous. It would seem the moral vacuum begs to be filled.

Those making such open arrangements often have difficulty dealing with their violated intuitions. I once watched a "Behind the Music" special on '70s punk rocker Billy Idol where he and his wife shared the story of their breakup. It seems that they had an arrangement that they could "sleep around" as long as they didn't flaunt their lovers in the presence of one another. One day Billy made a rather graphic call to a mistress. The trouble was, he was in a room with a baby monitor and his wife heard the conversation on the other end. It was too much to bear, and she promptly filed for divorce. The ironic thing is that even though Billy thought he was being discreet, and was abiding by the spirit of the promiscuity agreement, his wife couldn't handle the situation when the ugly truth raised its head from the shadows of her repressed intuition.

The contempt of promiscuity

I've often wondered why in our liberated and libertarian society prostitution is not more broadly legalized. Which aspect of that profession is in question? It certainly passes the popular criteria of "consent," and restrictions on what adults may do in private are falling like dominos. Perhaps it is the health risks inherent in promiscuous sexual practices, but most prostitutes already take precautions, and if we intend to legislate sexual health issues then we would have to rethink those evaporating sodomy laws. No, I think the issue relates to the cheapening and threatening availability of sex. What woman wants such opportunities presented to her husband or son, or aspires for her daughter to seek such a career? And how many men will put their reputations (or marriages) on the line to fight for legalized prostitution?

Even where prostitution is legal and the culture is liberal, it is not seen as a noble career. Schoolgirls do not typically dream of being call girls and men do not put them on their A-list for potential wives. But if there is nothing truly sacred about sex, then different people have every right to ascribe different value to it and engage in it as often and freely as they so choose. It would be no different from an artist who paints only for her own home versus one who paints for others on commission. Anyone who devalues the prostitute (or gigolo) does so either out of bigotry or out of their intuitive awareness of its profound cheapening and violation of the sanctity of sex.

The "love" connection

Remember that old Meatloaf song, "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights?" The couple in the song were, in its own words, "barely seventeen and barely dressed." But before the boy made it to home base the girl wanted to know something: "before we go any further, do you love me? Will you love me forever?" Even though society as a whole is fairly sexually liberal, it is only the minority who are promiscuous to the extreme that they will consciously pursue one-night-stands. And of those who do, it tends to be an attitude acquired sometime after virginity has been lost and the ideals of young love are a distant memory. Virginity is not left easily or without emotional investment. Women seem to have the greatest moral intuition in this matter partly, I think, because they are more keenly sensitive to the social and emotional issues that are contributing factors to why sex must be sacred. At minimum, a girl prefers to have "love" involved because she likes to think that she is doing something special -- that her body and, particularly, her virginity, is worth something for which "love" is suitable compensation. But if sex has no real objective value, then she could just as well reserve kissing, giving a massage, or playing double solitaire for that someone special. I think it's safe to predict that we'll never hear something as odd as, "I'm sorry I can't play monopoly with you. I'm saving myself for marriage."

But why pick "love" as that special qualifier for sexual license? Is it "love" as mere emotion? Even though society seems to have distilled love primarily down to an emotion, if it were all about a feeling then a boy could "love" his way into numerous sexual relationships, for surely one may have strong "emotions" for more than one person at a time (well, at least it is the fantasy of many an adolescent boy). In reality, with "love" comes certain behavioral expectations, which tend to include devotion and fidelity. Is it just fidelity for a day and devotion till the next best thing comes along? No. There is generally some assumption, or at least hope, that the relationship will endure. If there were some plan or suspicion of an end, then a profession of love would ring hollow. This is why one of the most common prose of the romantic is "I will love you till the end of time." The pinnacle of romantic love is an exclusive, selfless, and enduring dedication to another person, and the pure and institutional expression of this is marriage. The love sought by discriminating lovers in their desperation to sanctify their sexual unions is a mere shadowing of the rightful place that God has made for it.

Is Homosexuality Compatible With Christianity?

Here is a new article that came about as a result of two queries that hit me at the same time: one from my daughter and the other submitted through our apologetics site. The content is presented in the form of answers to the following sequential questions.

• "Is my loved one going to hell because they are homosexual?"
• "If we all have sin then why pick on homosexuality?"
• "Is homosexuality really a sin?"
• "Is it possible for someone to be mistaken in this one area and still be saved?"
• "So, is the final answer that there are no homosexual Christians?"

Between Consenting Adults

This post has since been published as a LifeWay.com/apologetics article and can now be found here.

Here is the article "teaser":

"What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business." Is this really a good moral criteria? Based on the outrageous and lethal things that some consenting adults have managed to do, "consent" advocates should be running for cover.