President Obama declares June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month:
LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.
I would really like to hear more from the President on this topic. Perhaps he could explain how bisexuals—because of the their bisexuality—have enriched America and how transgendered—because or their transgendered orientation—have have strengthened the “fabric of our national life.” In other words, maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level.
Also, I’d really love to see a few names of the transgendered folks—people who may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual—who are “serving at every level” of his administration. By my count he has exactly one example.
Lest you think this is a much ado about nothing, I recommend Hadley Arkes latest article in First Things, “Vast Dangers in a Small Place“, to get a better idea of where this orientation fixation is heading:
[T]he groups defined by homosexual acts or “sexual orientations” are marked as groups precisely by the acts they commit. People are described as “arsonists,” for example, when they commit arson, and the recoil from arsonists is a recoil from the crime of arson.
The problem here is that any activity we could name could be directed to a hurtful or wrongful end. Sexual acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be deployed as assaults to injure and degrade. Some people may be “oriented” to rape, or to sadomasochism or bestiality. Even gay and lesbian activists will argue over the question of whether they regard members of the Man–Boy Love Association as standing legitimately in their circle, with a “sexual orientation” they respect.
Would even the most liberal among us not have serious reservations if they had to judge whether a man committed to sadomasochism or bestiality had the maturity to act as an adoptive father? Which is to say, there may be many instances in the law in which even liberals think it legitimate to draw adverse inferences about people, and their legal claims, based on their “sexual orientation.”
May 30th, 2010 | 10:03 pm
[T]he groups defined by homosexual acts or “sexual orientations” are marked as groups precisely by the acts they commit.
False. Homosexuality is a preference or an inclination toward being sexually attracted to those of the same sex. No serious person defines homosexuality in terms of sexual acts.
Even the Catholic Church is quite clear on the distinction. Let’s look at the Church’s Catechism on the Sixth Commandment:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex…
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible…
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity…
How could you call a “homosexual person” to chastity if it is the very sexual act that defines them as a homosexual? The person does not cease to have the homosexual inclination simply because he or she is chaste. I disagree with the Church on its moral views on homosexual sex but it at least has familiarity with the way psychologists define homosexuality.
May 30th, 2010 | 11:27 pm
It’s a bit of a stretch, I think, to say Obama was implying that the LGBT community helps society BECAUSE of their sexual preferences. And maybe there is cause for celebration, as the country is realizing more and more that the sexual proclivities of this large group of people do not harm society.
May 30th, 2010 | 11:36 pm
Dear Joe Carter,
You say, “maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level.”
Perhaps the fact that you NEED such an explanation serves as the very reason why LGTB lives should be celebrated.
Because LGTB people are HUMAN BEINGS. Who, despite living their lives with their heads under the boot of the heterosexuals who created them, still manage to rise, to love, and to create art, and contribute to society despite it’s willingness to take from us and never give us anything back but disrespect, and raise our children, and care for our families and all of the things that heterosexuals get to do WITHOUT the hinderence of LGTB citizens trampling on THEM at every given opportunity.
Just a thought.
Your ignorance is of your own choosing.
You should do better.
May 30th, 2010 | 11:58 pm
Joe,
Instead of trying to pivot off of something Obama said in order to attack something he didn’t, why don’t you try arguing the contrary of any of the sentences you quote? Can you do that? I’m rather doubtful.
May 31st, 2010 | 1:02 am
Travis It’s a bit of a stretch, I think, to say Obama was implying that the LGBT community helps society BECAUSE of their sexual preferences.
That seems to be the inescapable logic of what he is implying. Presumably all of these Americans who have “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” have other characteristics besides their sexual orientation. They are men and women, black and Asian, right-handed and left-handed, etc. So what is the purpose of using their sexual identification as a marker if he has no bearing on their accomplishments?
Imagine if we swapped out “LGBT” for “left-handed white people” in his proclamation:
Now if Obama has said this you’d probably say it was a bit silly, even a tad bit racist. Why in the world would we need to praise people for traits that have no bearing on either their achievements or their worth as individuals?
And maybe there is cause for celebration, as the country is realizing more and more that the sexual proclivities of this large group of people do not harm society.
The way that the country is learning this is by becoming willfully ignorant of the facts. For at least a half a century we have been compiling data that confirms that gay sex has a negative effect on the health of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. (For a brief primer, see: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf ) This is neither new, nor controversial. Yet is it surprising how many people (particularly young people) attempt to downplay or ignore the scientific evidence because it contradicts their liberal sexual attitudes.
Now you may say that since the negative effects of gay sex predominantly (though not exclusively) by the LGBT community. And that is true. But while we should be tolerant of destructive lifestyles, Christians are commanded to love your neighbor. You simply cannot love your neighbor and dismiss as unimportant the behavior that is causing them harm.
For example, imagine if you knew a young girl was a “cutter”—she physically hurts herself by making small cuts on her body with a knife or razor blade. What if I were to say that “proclivities of this large group of people do not harm society.” You would probably consider me to be callous an uncaring—and you’d be right.
We my have to tolerate the destructive behavior of individuals but we do not have to take “pride” in the ways they harm themselves.
Bill Perhaps the fact that you NEED such an explanation serves as the very reason why LGTB lives should be celebrated.
Do I even need to explain how nonsensical that sentence is?
One of the problems with this sexual politics nonsense is that it leads to incoherence and contradictions. For example, we are told that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. But then we are told that people should take “pride” in their orientation. Why should their be pride in something that people have no control over. A
Because LGTB people are HUMAN BEINGS.
Then why don’t we celebrate them for being “human beings” rather as “LGBTs”? If the sexual orientation has nothing to do with the rest of their lives—as is often claimed—then why does it need to be praised?
Charlie Collier Instead of trying to pivot off of something Obama said in order to attack something he didn’t, . . .
If he didn’t say that, then what was the point? If their sexual orientation is irrelevant then why is their a month dedicated for us to take “pride” in their sexual orientation?
. . .why don’t you try arguing the contrary of any of the sentences you quote? Can you do that? I’m rather doubtful.
See the above statements.
By the way, Charlie, I assume you are a Christian so maybe you can clarify what your disagreement with me is. The Christian faith has always considered homosexual behavior to be sinful. Do you disagree? Are you one that claims to know more than God, the Bible, every significant Christian leader in history, etc.?
May 31st, 2010 | 2:11 am
Now you may say that since the negative effects of gay sex predominantly (though not exclusively) by the LGBT community. And that is true. But while we should be tolerant of destructive lifestyles, Christians are commanded to love your neighbor. You simply cannot love your neighbor and dismiss as unimportant the behavior that is causing them harm.
Nonsense. The risks that are claimed to be associated with homosexuality are actually associated with sexual promiscuity. Certain STDs are especially concentrated in the gay male community — that’s why education and safe sex are so important for this group.
Most of the “facts” cited in this pamphlet are pretty obvious distortions and fallacies. Yes gay men have shorter life expectancy — perhaps this has something to do with HIV? And perhaps life expectancy can be increased through responsible behavior?
The correlation between homosexuality and mental illness was debunked decades ago. Correlation does not equal causation.
It claims lesbian women are at high risk of STDs but fails to note the well-known fact that HIV rates are lower among lesbians than they are among heterosexual women.
And it just goes downhill from there. We can all agree that multiple-partner sex — whether of the straight or gay variety — is inherently dangerous. But quit poking your nose in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians in committed relationships and presuming to know what is best for them.
May 31st, 2010 | 9:39 am
“We can all agree that multiple-partner sex — whether of the straight or gay variety — is inherently dangerous. But quit poking your nose in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians in committed relationships and presuming to know what is best for them.”
I thought they were “called to chastity.” Isn’t that presuming to know what is best for people, people who may wish to define themselves by fornication?
May 31st, 2010 | 9:49 am
So what is the purpose of using their sexual identification as a marker if he has no bearing on their accomplishments?
I’m sorry, but the answer is as obvious as the day is long: because LGBT people have long been disrespected despite their contributions and precisely because of their sexuality. Rightly or wrongly, it is society which has made an issue of their sexuality.
May 31st, 2010 | 10:03 am
Putting aside the question of how supporting sexual practices that are inherently disease-producing can be justified, one notices an even more fundamental and dangerous error in this well-meaning effort by the President. Reducing the totality of a human person to a form of sexual behavior has ominous consequences for everyone. Has the President, one must wonder, thought through the way in which this idea might be extended to other behaviors which would then “define” any particular person or persons? One other point: Far from wanting to inquire into sexual choices made by persons who label themselves by their sexuality, people of good will only hope that those who respectfully disagree with their choice will be allowed to honor their own commitments as well. Actions such as this declaration by the President of “all the people” are disturbing, ominous.
May 31st, 2010 | 10:04 am
Joe,
You don’t actually argue against anything the president says.
You do NOT deny that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.”
You do NOT counter the claim that “From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.”
You do NOT reject the notion that “They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.”
You provide NO evidence that it’s false for Obama to assert that “Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.”
So you want to pivot off of these noncontroversial claims of Obama to debate homosexuality in general, and from a theological perspective in particular. I’m prepared to have that conversation—you’ll find me far less dogmatic on this topic than most partisans—but you still need to be called out for trying to change the subject.
One good reason for saying what Obama has said is that people have often said directly or implied by hostile innuendo that LGBT persons/lifestyles were so awful, so contrary to reason and revelation, and so destructive of the social fabric that they simply could not exist normally in society. People lived in “the closet” because the stigma attached to being LGBT was so great that they feared they could not keep their jobs, live their lives, if people knew the truth about them. Obama is pointing out that this is not in fact the case, and that it’s good for this prejudice to have been defeated. Again, you don’t seem capable of making a convincing case for the opposite.
As for the theological question, a comment box is hardly the place to deal with this fraught issue. I’ll will concede up front that the person arguing on behalf of gay marriage—this is ultimately where this question leads for Christians, since sexuality is marital—bears the burden of proof.
But so did Copernicus, who according to news reports was recently moved from an unmarked grave into a cathedral for having been courageous, correct, and faithful (!) in affirming the heliocentricity of the universe. How many people accused him of being smarter than God, the Bible, and every significant Christian leader in history?
Of course, that doesn’t settle the contemporary debate about homosexuality, but it should give someone like you pause. As much as conservative culture warriors might try to make it so, you just can’t turn every effort to understand and embrace homosexuality in the life of the church into an issue that threatens the heart of Christian faith and practice. True, there are some self-identified progressives who in fact go there—i.e., they reject the authority of the Bible, the doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity, etc. But that’s not required on this issue any more than it was with heliocentricity. I take it that you affirm that the earth revolves around the sun without having given up the ability to affirm the Nicene Creed. I think we just might be able to do the same thing with LGBT issues, though I admit it’s an uphill battle.
I’m prepared to face bearing the burden of proof. As the Copernicus example illustrates, there’s precedent for saying new and true things about the natural world in the face of blanket opposition and hostility from defenders of the tradition.
There are serious theologians who think that the naturalness of homosexuality will, over time, settle the issue. For example, James Alison, who received some of his training from the great Domincan theologian Herbert McCabe, argues on Catholic natural law grounds for confidence in the eventual full inclusion of gay and lesbian men and women in the Catholic church. If you haven’t read Alison, you should. You might start with his “Letter to a Young Gay Catholic”: http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng52.html
May 31st, 2010 | 10:55 am
“They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors”
How, biologically speaking, can this be true of LGBT as LGBT? For L and G, it’s clearly not the case (except in the case of adoption, which can be effected only by a normalizing and legalizing of adoption by LG persons). For B and T, how does assuming such a lifestyle increase the probability or possibility of conceiving and birthing children over against remaining “unisexual” (whatever we might call the original from which “besexual” is derived) or transgender persons? Was there a problem begetting children that B and/or T fixes?
If you, Mr. Carter, want to know how LGBT persons as such “srengthen the fabric of our nationa life”, I’d like to know how LGBT persons as such become mothers and fathers, as President Obama claims that they have. Seems to be another example of the propaganda of language so common in the public square today (of which even those I agree with are often guilty).
May 31st, 2010 | 11:22 am
[...] A Reproach to Any People Jump to Comments Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. [...]
May 31st, 2010 | 11:43 am
I thought they were “called to chastity.” Isn’t that presuming to know what is best for people, people who may wish to define themselves by fornication?
That’s the Catholic position and, being neither Catholic nor Christian, it’s not my concern what their church dogma says about homosexuality although I do find it interesting they understand the distinction between those of homosexual inclination and those who engage in homosexual acts.
On the other hand, the pamphlet by John Diggs is pseudo-scientific hackery. It’s quite amusing to get to the part about lesbians when Dr. Diggs has to awkwardly admit that most of the STDs lesbians have come from having sex with men. In other words, lesbians who exclusively have sex with other women are at less risk from STDs than straight women.
If you want to believe homosexual sex is wrong, just say so. Please don’t try to use a pseudo-scientific fig leaf to help support your view because the actual evidence is pretty mixed. Male homosexual sex is certainly an added risk factor for certain illnesses and complications but the risk can be substantially reduced through responsible and safe practices.
Sports like football and skiing are inherently dangerous and lead to all kinds of injuries: nobody uses that as a basis for saying one should simply not do them. “Love” does not compel you to try to convince your neighbor’s son to leave the high school football team because of his higher risk of serious physical injury. Being a good neighbor often means learning to mind your own business.
May 31st, 2010 | 11:52 am
Mark Nonsense. The risks that are claimed to be associated with homosexuality are actually associated with sexual promiscuity.
Although sexual promiscuity is certainly one of the factors that put homosexuals at a greater risk of STDs, there are many, many health risks that come from the sexual activities of gay men. This is a family blog so it’s not the place to discuss those issues. But anyone with a child’s understanding of the human body can probably figure out what those might be. If you can’t, I suggest you read the source I cited again.
Most of the “facts” cited in this pamphlet are pretty obvious distortions and fallacies.
You are welcome to set us straight on those. Perhaps you can start by explaining the fallacy that Human Herpes Virus 8 is a disease found exclusively among male homosexual practitioners.
Yes gay men have shorter life expectancy — perhaps this has something to do with HIV?
How exactly does that counter the point I made? How many gay men that have not ever engaged in homosexual sex have contracted HIV?
And perhaps life expectancy can be increased through responsible behavior?
Of course it can. It can be increased by not engaging in homosexual sexual activities.
The correlation between homosexuality and mental illness was debunked decades ago.
If you really mean the correlation then you are surely wrong. For example, a study found that suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average for the population. (Remafedi, G.; French, S.; Story, M.; Resnick, M.D.; Blum, R. (1998): The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. Am. J. Publ. Health 88, 57-60.) That is a correlation.
It claims lesbian women are at high risk of STDs but fails to note the well-known fact that HIV rates are lower among lesbians than they are among heterosexual women.
The source claims, “Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.” That is true even for HIV. While the total rate of HIV infection is lower among lesbian and bisexual, their infection rate is significantly higher than for straight woman.
But quit poking your nose in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians in committed relationships and presuming to know what is best for them.
Surely you realize that there is a difference within the homosexual community between being “committed” and being monogamous. A gay man, for example, can be in a “committed” relationship—according to the standard within the gay community—and still be promiscuous.
Charlie Collier You do NOT deny that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.”
No, what I deny is that their being “LGBT” has anything to do with their accomplishments. Since it doesn’t, it’s a bit stupid for Obama to use that as a point on which they should take “pride.” What is it exactly that they are supposed to be “proud” of? Unless it has something to do with their sexual orientation, then it makes no sense to define the “pride month” based on that criteria.
You provide NO evidence that it’s false for Obama to assert that “Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.”
If you’ll recall, I asked for further evidence. The burden of proof is on the President for making such a ludicrous claim.
So you want to pivot off of these noncontroversial claims of Obama to debate homosexuality in general, and from a theological perspective in particular.
If you really think the claims were “noncontroversial”, Charlie, then you really need to get out more.
Obama is pointing out that this is not in fact the case, and that it’s good for this prejudice to have been defeated. Again, you don’t seem capable of making a convincing case for the opposite.
Are you willing to apply this same standard to all types of sexual orientation? Or are you saying that it’s not okay to discriminate against the ones that conservatives don’t like but the ones that make liberals uncomfortable should be kept “in the closet?”
How many people accused him of being smarter than God, the Bible, and every significant Christian leader in history?
Surely you know that Copernicus was chastised because his theory contradicted the Aristotelian worldview, not the Christian one. Contradicting Aristotle’s interpretation is much different from denying what is clearly taught in the Bible.
you just can’t turn every effort to understand and embrace homosexuality in the life of the church into an issue that threatens the heart of Christian faith and practice.
It certainly serves as a good litmus test. The only Christians that I’ve ever seen embrace homosexual behavior (rather than people who have a homosexual orientation) are those that have either abandoned the heart of Christian faith and practice or are well on their way to doing so.
But that’s not required on this issue any more than it was with heliocentricity. I take it that you affirm that the earth revolves around the sun without having given up the ability to affirm the Nicene Creed.
Heliocentrism is not taught in the Bible—never was. But the prohibition against homosexual behavior has always been understood to be a clear teaching.
I think we just might be able to do the same thing with LGBT issues, though I admit it’s an uphill battle.
The fact that you are even wanting to do so shows that you are willing to put other concerns ahead of God’s authority.
There are serious theologians who think that the naturalness of homosexuality will, over time, settle the issue.
I would say that would be the very definition of an “unserious theologian.” Any theologian that does not already understand that sin is the “natural” (unregenerate) state of human existence is not someone to be taken seriously.
But I suspect what you mean is that these liberal theologians will find a way to claim that homosexuality is “natural” and thus acceptable while finding some way to cover up the fact that other “natural” orientations (such as pedophilia) should still be kept “in the closet.”
May 31st, 2010 | 12:26 pm
Although sexual promiscuity is certainly one of the factors that put homosexuals at a greater risk of STDs, there are many, many health risks that come from the sexual activities of gay men.
The risks are not so high as to justify advising someone to stop having sex altogether. The third largest source of new HIV cases in the U.S. after white gay men and black gay men is black straight women. Are we supposed to start telling black women to stop having sex? And keep in mind here that black women do contract STDs from unfaithful husbands or boyfriends — it is not always predominantly the woman’s fault.
How exactly does that counter the point I made? How many gay men that have not ever engaged in homosexual sex have contracted HIV?
And how many straight or straight women who have never engaged in heterosexual sex have contracted HIV (leaving aside IV drug users)? You are applying an obvious double standard. Straight and gay people can both substantially reduce their risk of contracting HIV by being responsible: having fewer sexual partners, being in faithful relationships and practicing safe sex.
While the total rate of HIV infection is lower among lesbian and bisexual, their infection rate is significantly higher than for straight woman.
This is simply wrong and is a perfect example of the kinds of fallacies this pamphlet promotes. According to the CDC data on infection, “Through December 2004, a total of 246,461 women were reported as HIV infected. Of these, 7,381 were reported to have had sex with women… Of the 534 (of 7,381) women who were reported to have had sex only with women, 91% also had another risk factor—typically, injection drug use.”
Women who have sex with women are 3% of the total. I’m not sure how the CDC defines this but according to The National Health and Social Life Survey as quoted in “The Social Organization of Sexuality,” 3.7% of women report having an adult sexual experience with another woman. 0.4% report being exclusive lesbians which compares to the 0.2% of female HIV infections among exclusive lesbians. And even for these women, a disproportionate number report IV drug use which is also significant risk factor. It appears being a lesbian is not a risk factor for contracting HIV.
The CDC has concluded that while HIV transmission through lesbian sexual contact is theoretically possible, it’s not clear it actually happens much in practice.
Surely you realize that there is a difference within the homosexual community between being “committed” and being monogamous.
I’m not sure what these semantic games have to do with the underlying issue. Homosexual sex need not be inherently dangerous and, indeed, female homosexual contact appears extraordinarily safe. Gay men are at high risk of infection of certain STDs as are black women. This is not enough to tell either group to stop having sex. It’s as simple as that. The message ought to be for everyone to be more responsible and look out for their own health.
May 31st, 2010 | 12:44 pm
One thought: In a pluralistic society, Biblical teaching can be cited but not imposed – something we all understand. It can be proposed but not imposed, as Pope John Paul and many others have held. Christians can, however, and should, appeal to reason. As one commentor has mentioned, an “orientation” is blameless. What matters is the action or actions that follow any particular orientation. Some actions are good in many senses – good, for instance, for bodily health, good in another sense for the common good of society, or good in another sense for mental and emotional health. Some actions, on the other hand, are harmful in every sense. Refusing to accept that this is true is to lose contact with reality – earthly reality that is as it relates to our bodily life. If we can no longer reason together and are to be obliged to ignore the facts about any particular matter, we really are lost.
May 31st, 2010 | 12:47 pm
There’s also this howler in John Diggs’ pamphlet: “there is no scientific evidence that being gay or lesbian is genetically determined.”
This strawman allows Diggs to avoid all the evidence that genes and biology do, in fact, play a significant role in homosexuality. Bailey and Pillard (1991) show that male homosexuality has a concordance rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins, and 9.2% among non-twin brothers. Having someone genetically related to you be gay substantially increases your own likelihood of being gay. It’s an inconvenient fact that somehow doesn’t even seem worth mentioning to Diggs.
Other research by Bailey shows that sexual attraction is an involuntary reaction and tends to be bimodal — we don’t see very, very few people who are attracted to both sexes equally. This suggests sexual orientation is not something that can be easily changed and, indeed, probably cannot be changed at all.
May 31st, 2010 | 12:51 pm
If we keep “recognizing” (ie. designating a month) every single group in the US and inauthentically and affectedly praising it, we are sure to run out of months. But then again, Mr. Obama is under the impression that he does have the power to change everything, including the number of months in a year.
Placating somebody never worked and it won’t work in this case either. Human beings should be honored for their merit, not some “valuable attributes” concoted in fantasy land of Obama’s nihlism.
May 31st, 2010 | 12:59 pm
Joe,
It gets worse with each new comment. Obama didn’t claim that lesbianism is what is making particular government employees excel. You’re straining here to defend a critique that totally misses its target—because you’ve invented a new target, the one you want to hit, but that Obama does not represent.
As I’ve pointed out, and as other commenters have pointed out more succinctly and more eloquently (Ken), this is about the fact that being openly LGBT is not a barrier to excellent public service. People of your political and theological persuasion once thought that it was. It turns out that it’s not. If you want to argue that it is, be my guest. But so far, you’ve tried to change the subject. So please tell us why openly LGBT people are not qualified to offer excellent public service. That’s the argument you need to make.
I called the claims noncontroversial because I don’t really think anyone who is to be taken seriously wants to seriously dispute them. You certainly get worked up by them, but you’ve yet to mount a serious argument against any of them.
The best you can do is “ask for further evidence” about “the ludicrous claim” that openly LGBT people are serving at every level of government. Why is that a ludicrous claim? We know that closeted LGBT folks are serving all across the military, and they would be doing so openly were it not against the law, so why would anyone find it ludicrous that openly LGBT folks are serving at many levels of the federal government where it’s no illegal to do so? We have openly gay Congressmen, for crying out loud. You know this, so the ludicrousness here rests not with Obama’s claim but with your reactionary criticisms.
“The only Christians that I’ve ever seen embrace homosexual behavior (rather than people who have a homosexual orientation) are those that have either abandoned the heart of Christian faith and practice or are well on their way to doing so.”
Well, then you need to get around more. Eugene Rogers, Rowan Williams, Stanley Hauerwas, James Alison—these are not all gay men, but they are all serious Christian theologians who have by no means abandoned the heart of Christian faith and practice.
“The fact that you are even wanting to do so shows that you are willing to put other concerns ahead of God’s authority.”
I’d invite you to wrestle a bit more with God’s authority. It is precisely God’s authority that stands over the both of us. It is God’s authority, made known most fully in Christ Jesus, that makes a mockery of the idea, I think clearly presumed by you, that “tradition” or “orthodoxy” is some settled club of the likeminded that only kooks and liberals would ever deign to depart from. Jesus, exemplifying a life lived well under radical obedience to God’s authority, died alone, abandoned by everyone for the sake of a love that extended all the way to his enemies. You seem to think there’s some simple identification of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality with the particular shape of God’s redemption of the world in Christ. I disagree. People have tried to identify “the heart of the gospel” with many dubious ethical positions, and I believe this is one of them.
“Surely you know that Copernicus was chastised because his theory contradicted the Aristotelian worldview, not the Christian one. Contradicting Aristotle’s interpretation is much different from denying what is clearly taught in the Bible.”
You’re kidding, right? A cursory look around the internet will show you just how wrong this claim is. Here’s a paragraph from a Web site maintained at Rice University:
“There was another problem [with Copernicus' theory]. A stationary Sun and moving Earth also clashed with many biblical passages. Protestants and Catholics alike often dismissed heliocentrism on these grounds. Martin Luther did so in one of his “table talks” in 1539, before De Revolutionibus had appeared. (Preliminary sketches had circulated in manuscript form.) In the long run, Protestants, who had some freedom to interpret the bible personally, accepted heliocentrism somewhat more quickly. Catholics, especially in Spain and Italy, had to be more cautious in the religious climate of the Counter Reformation, as the case of Galileo clearly demonstrates. Christoph Clavius, the leading Jesuit mathematician from about 1570 to his death in 1612, used biblical arguments against heliocentrism in his astronomical textbook.”
And here’s a nice compilation of Scripture verses and traditional affirmations of geocentrism (the “conservative/traditional” view) that’s all you need to read to see just how preposterous your claim is about Scripture and geocentrism (you wrote heliocentrism, but you meant geocentrism). Indeed, there are more passages in Scripture to support something called “geocentrism” than there are that condemn something called “homosexuality”:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
Here’s a quote attributed to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine: “To affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens…and the earth… revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
May 31st, 2010 | 1:39 pm
Obama does have a point. No group of people is spreading STDs faster than homosexuals. They account for a majority of cases of HIV in the country, 65% of the cases of syphilis in 2008 and are the highest risk group for several other STDs. And, all that has contributed to a search for a cure to all those diseases.
May 31st, 2010 | 1:39 pm
Stepping back from the debate over homosexuality in general, it’s still hard to see why I should be celebrating anybody’s sexuality. I don’t care to celebrate LGBT sexuality any more than I care to celebrate the celibate life embraced by Catholic clergy. Similarly, I have no intention of celebrating the sexuality of the drunk couple I saw at the bar last night or that of my parents or my friends, nor am I particularly interested in celebrating my own sexuality. The only conceivable reason I can see for celebrating a type of sexuality would be if it has conferred a demonstrable benefit to society, and I utterly fail to see how the sexual practices of LGBT persons has made the world a better place for me to live in.
An example: During black history month we celebrate the accomplishments of the members of a minority group that long went unrecognized. We do not celebrate their “blackness” any more than we would celebrate Einstein’s “whiteness”. The point of the exercise is to raise awareness that the black community has produced great men and women who have, in fact, contributed a great deal to our society. A LGBT history month would make a great deal more sense than this nonsense being propagated by Obama, although I personally doubt that it’s needed since our history books are already replete with examples of historical figures of other than heterosexual orientations. You can agree or disagree with me on whether such an endeavor would be useful, the point remains the same.
Also, it seems a singularly peculiar contradiction that homosexual activists recycle the old line of “keep your nose out of our bedroom” while simultaneously ramming that same bedroom into the public square and demanding the acclamation of the nation.
May 31st, 2010 | 1:57 pm
“Bailey and Pillard (1991) show that male homosexuality has a concordance rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins, and 9.2% among non-twin brothers. Having someone genetically related to you be gay substantially increases your own likelihood of being gay.”
That is not proof or evidence that homosexuality is genetic as twins and identical twins are likely to be exposed to the SAME environmental factors that cause homosexuality. One would have to show twins RAISED APART are more likely to be homosexual and that hasn’t been done.
And, best “evidence” you have homosexuality is genetic? Pathetic. In other words, you have nothing resembling proof or credible evidence homosexuality is biological or genetic.
Further, followup studies on identical twins only showed the rate of homosexuality among identical twins to be about 20%, making the likelihood of homosexuality being environmental more likely.
And, you want to ignore the large body of psychological studies, including a five-year study by renowned sex researchers Masters and Johnson, show homosexuality is curable and, thus, environmentally causes. Masters and Johnson reported a 65% rate of success for homosexuals seeking to overcome their homosexual desires over a five-year period.
There are literally thousands of former homosexuals that are now heterosexuals, in many case happily-married heterosexuals with children, like Stephen Bennett.
May 31st, 2010 | 2:13 pm
James,
“The point of the exercise [black history month] is to raise awareness that the black community has produced great men and women who have, in fact, contributed a great deal to our society.”
Imagine that, a black president extending this very point to the LGBT community. Why do you need to call it nonsense?
May 31st, 2010 | 4:39 pm
From the link that Joe provided:
“The only epidemiological study to date
on the life span of gay men concluded
that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20
years of life expectancy.”
Here are the authors of the study:
“In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4″
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
In short, there’s no credible data that shows reduced lifespan for homosexuals.
Though I would agree that promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex is very bad idea.
May 31st, 2010 | 4:44 pm
The source claims, “Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.” That is true even for HIV. While the total rate of HIV infection is lower among lesbian and bisexual, their infection rate is significantly higher than for straight woman.
This begs some questions. One thing is for sure these women are not getting HIV from lesbian sex.
I suspect that there are 1) lesbians like Ellen DeGeneres on the one hand. And folks like her simply do not get HIV/AIDS from their sex practices. And then there are 2) women like Angelina Jolie who live loose bohemian lifestyles where experimental lesbianism is part of it. They may be more likely to get HIV, but it’s NOT from lesbian sex.
She made a movie — Gia — about a fashion model who died of HIV and lived such a lifestyle.
May 31st, 2010 | 4:51 pm
I realize that I and many others who have commented have fallen into a category error. The question is, “Should the President of the United States assign identity to a group on the basis of sexual behavior, practice, or “orientation” and proceed to honor this group in a particular way – not “Are homosexual practices in accordance with right reason?”. One reasonable commentor mentioned that we will quickly run out of weeks and months if we insist on honoring every subgroup according to its proclivities. The discussion revolving around health, personal and public, is, nevertheless, an important one. Some commentors want to believe that a practice which offends against the most elementary sanitary practices is not unhealthy or they contend that heterosexual promiscuity is even more unhealthy. These assertions help to undergird the self-evident truth that monogamous heterosexual marriage is most healthy for our bodies. The further belief that it is also best for mind, heart, and soul is the noble belief of Jewish and Christian thinkers and believers through time and, of course, that of other noble religions as well. Recent attempts to alter this principle seem political rather than theological. For those of no religious faith, many also hold that a self-evident, observable fact of the matter is that heterosexual monogamy is the norm for human beings.
May 31st, 2010 | 5:36 pm
Mark, Charlie Collier, and Ken: No doubt pedophiles and pornographers have also “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life [and] achieved success and prominence in every discipline” in areas unrelated to their pedophilia and pornographic endeavors. And no doubt they have been the recipients of intense prejudice for a long time. Would any of you support a National Pedophile and Pornographer Pride Month?
May 31st, 2010 | 5:49 pm
JB in CA:
“Would any of you support a National Pedophile and Pornographer Pride Month?”
No, I would not. The practices of pedophilia and pornography depend upon intrinsically manipulative and objectifying relationships. Being LGBT does not.
May 31st, 2010 | 7:29 pm
Private behavior is not the cause of this controversy. For people of good will, problems involving homosexuality have arisen in the context of education of children, adoption of children, freedom of speech, religious freedom, and freedom of association. Advocacy of the use of force in requiring agreement with the homosexual, etc., agenda, together with aggressive political action, have naturally provoked a reaction. The subject has been changed from civil rights and freedom from harrassment to censorship of speech and denial of other American freedoms.
May 31st, 2010 | 8:14 pm
Much of this discussion has been intensely utilitarian. In other words, the idea has been “as long as it doesn’t affect spread of disease, gay behaviors are no one else’s business. Consequences are what matters.”
But this isn’t true. Any type of fornication (to use that word again) is wrong. This isn’t simply a “Catholic dogma” (as Mark put it), although Catholicism does recognize the obvious: that sex unites two people, supposedly for life, and that two people of the opposite sex procreate through sex.
Sex outside of marriage, in other words, is not intended to help lifetime uniting, and usually is not intended to bring children into an ideal environment for their raising. (Gay sex is never intended for this latter end.) Paradoxically, most people in our sex-drenched society don’t even know what sex is for. Even well educated people, like most of those posting on this thread, don’t know what sex is all about.
Charlie Collier is actually pretty close when he speaks of pedophilia and other sex practices: “The practices of pedophilia and pornography depend upon intrinsically…” wrongful relationships. Yes, that’s right: “intrinsically.”
Nature itself extends that “intrinsically” comment to LGBT practices–whether or not these practices ever spread a single disease. The Church reaffirms this; so does the Bible. But this stance does not depend upon being Catholic, Christian, a Bible-believing person, or whatever.
May 31st, 2010 | 9:11 pm
Joe Carter:
You are welcome to set us straight on those. Perhaps you can start by explaining the fallacy that Human Herpes Virus 8 is a disease found exclusively among male homosexual practitioners.
HHV-8 infection is NOT found exclusively among male homosexuals. Where did you get such a silly idea?
See, for instance, Rimar et al. (2006) Israel Medical Association Journal 8: 489-493
“The distribution of the virus parallels the pattern of Kaposi’s; namely, low seroprevalence in central and northern Europe, North America and most of Asia, intermediate prevalence (> 20%) in the Middle East and Mediterranean, and high prevallence in central and southern Africa (up to 87% in the Congo
Republic and Botswana) [4] … In endemic countries HHV-8 prevalence is very low in the population under 2 years of age, after which it rises, and is consistent with transmission among close contacts and family members.”
May 31st, 2010 | 10:02 pm
That is not proof or evidence that homosexuality is genetic as twins and identical twins are likely to be exposed to the SAME environmental factors that cause homosexuality. One would have to show twins RAISED APART are more likely to be homosexual and that hasn’t been done.
You are certainly right that studying twins raised apart would represent an even better evidence of the influence of genes on homosexuality.
But you completely miss the point on environment versus genes. It is also the case that non-identical twins share almost exactly the same environment as identical twins in terms of being raised in the same household, probably going to the same school, etc. Yet someone with a gay identical twin is twice as likely as someone with a non-identical twin to be gay himself. That’s very clear evidence of a genetic link (or at least biological link — identical twins may share the same placenta when in the womb).
If the topic were anything else, I doubt you would be objecting to any of this. For instance, if we were discussing heart disease and I pointed out that heart disease had similar concordance rates among twins and brothers, I doubt you would be stubborn enough to say, “Pathetic. In other words, you have nothing resembling proof or credible evidence heart disease is biological or genetic.”
Further, followup studies on identical twins only showed the rate of homosexuality among identical twins to be about 20%, making the likelihood of homosexuality being environmental more likely.
Citation, please. Note that even if the true number is 20%, that still means someone with a gay identical twin brother is 10 times more likely than a randomly chosen man to be gay. That’s a huge difference.
Masters and Johnson reported a 65% rate of success for homosexuals seeking to overcome their homosexual desires over a five-year period.
In other words, their failure rate is 35%. And this is for the minority of people who want really badly to “change” their sexual orientation so it is a very select sample. Did they have a control group who did not receive the intervention? What is the failure rate over 10 or 15 years?
Moreover, I don’t see this as proof of anything other than the fact that some homosexuals who want to can suppress their sexual desires for extended periods of time. Heterosexuals can remain celibate if they want to as well. It doesn’t prove you can actually change your orientation.
There are literally thousands of former homosexuals that are now heterosexuals, in many case happily-married heterosexuals with children, like Stephen Bennett.
And then there is George “rent-a-boy” Alan Rekers. I mean as long as we are relying on anecdotes and not randomized control trials…
May 31st, 2010 | 10:50 pm
Charlie Collier: Fair enough. But now that you’ve introduced the principle that the intrinsic wrongness of a “lifestyle” should rule out its celebration in a national “Pride Month,” you need to do at least two things: (i) spell out what constitutes intrinsic wrongfulness and (ii) show how that definition does not apply to GLBT lifestyles. Neither, I suspect, is going to be as easy as you might think. (Hint: with respect to i, neither manipulation nor objectification is a necessary condition of intrinsic wrongness; with respect to ii, it’s difficult to see how such a deep disconnect between one’s biological and psychological natures could be anything but intrinsically harmful.)
May 31st, 2010 | 10:58 pm
Craig: Any type of fornication (to use that word again) is wrong.
Not at all.
This isn’t simply a “Catholic dogma” (as Mark put it)
The Catholic dogma quote comes from me responding to your quote about homosexuals being “called to chastity.” I’m pretty sure that language comes from the Catholic Church. Other religions have their own sets of dogmas on homosexuality — some more approving and others not.
Even well educated people, like most of those posting on this thread, don’t know what sex is all about.
This is remarkably patronizing.
Nature itself extends that “intrinsically” comment to LGBT practices
“Natural law” is a fallacy. If you want a basis for saying homosexuality is wrong, it would be better to skip straight to divine revelation rather than hanging your hat on fallacious ideas about biology.
June 1st, 2010 | 12:16 am
Craig Payne,
I appreciate the critique of utilitarianism/consequentialism. In other contexts, I make much the same point (I believe Christians have been disarmed by Christ, and that we need not kill our enemies because God in Christ refused to kill his).
Yet when it comes to sin, I don’t think it’s quite right to say that consequences are irrelevant. God’s prohibitions are not the arbitrary decrees of an inscrutable sovereign, utterly disconnected from the flourishing of creation. I affirm what James Alison calls “the Catholic position,” namely, that things aren’t bad for us because God prohibits them, but rather God prohibits things that are bad for us. I think it follows that describing an activity as sinful prior to or without any careful discernment of the harmful nature of that activity is incomplete at best, and harmful at worst.
That’s why I have a more difficult time with describing all homosexual activity as intrinsically disordered. I just don’t see it. I’m aware that other people have no such difficulty, however they often don’t because they refuse to even enter into the task of discerning the barrier to human flourishing presented by the activity. What we have increasingly come to know of as “homosexuality” in late modernity is a constellation of practices, some of which, disciplined by monogamy, and ordered toward the upbuilding of the body of Christ, seem to me not only not to harm those who engage in them, but to even contribute to individual flourishing and to the flourishing of the Church.
JB in CA,
I don’t think anything is easy when it comes to conflicts that threaten to divide the church. But I’d turn the point back on you—it’s not as easy as you seem to think to show that LGBT practices are intrinsically disordered. I have much respect for the Catholic view that every sexual act must be open to reproduction. It has the virtue of consistency, even if it entails as much a critique of most Protestant heterosexual practice as it does of homosexual practice. If that’s your view, I respect it. If it is, it means you think that, in addition to homosexuals, women taking the pill and getting tubal ligations are engaged in intrinsically immoral acts, as are men who wear condoms and get vasectomies, and so on and so forth. It’s interesting that none of these groups has ever received anything like the social ostracism heaped upon homosexuals. I wonder why.
June 1st, 2010 | 2:43 am
Kirk: And, you want to ignore the large body of psychological studies, including a five-year study by renowned sex researchers Masters and Johnson, show homosexuality is curable and, thus, environmentally causes.
After looking into the Masters and Johnson study, it doesn’t appear to be scientifically rigorous at all. As recounted in Haldeman (1991), here are just a few of the problems with the study:
1. Of the 54 original participants, only 9 identified as exclusively or predominantly homosexual. The other 45 participants were bisexual to start with.
2. No control group, so we don’t know how effective the “therapy” actually was.
3. M&J screened participants for mental illness as well as “motivation to change” but did not describe the actual screening procedure. So their small sample of 54 potentially has serious sample selection bias issues.
4. Of the 54 participants, 19 refused any followup. So for 35% of the sample, we don’t know what their outcomes were. It is possible that none of the 9 actual gay men in the original sample ever received any followup or whether any of them were successfully converted.
5. The authors inadequately describe their treatment procedure so, in practice, it is impossible to replicate the study.
Given all this, the Masters and Johnson study does not support your argument at all. It is junk science. And so are most of the other studies on “conversion therapy” which have the same problems as in #1 through #3 above. The studies tend to have large numbers of bisexual men, fail to have a control group and have potentially serious sample selection bias issues.
Most other studies reported a smaller “success” rate than M&J but with all the same problems. It appears to be nothing more than quackery and pseudo-science.
June 1st, 2010 | 8:13 am
It’s quackery indeed.
June 1st, 2010 | 10:10 am
I wrote, “Even well educated people, like most of those posting on this thread, don’t know what sex is all about.”
Mark wrote, “This is remarkably patronizing.”
Actually, I was aiming for full-blown, over-the-top, all-out patronizing. Next time I won’t be so reserved.
As for a more substantive response, it can’t come today (first day of new summer term). I shall return, however, when work lets up a bit.
June 1st, 2010 | 10:13 am
(Rats; can’t leave this alone.) I have to say one thing: Natural law teaching isn’t based on biology (alone). The biological makeup of the human person is, however, a feature of that person. In other words, males and females are naturally constituted so as to relate sexually. That isn’t a “fallacy.”
June 1st, 2010 | 1:58 pm
Charles:
Your assertions about Copernicus make for an entertaining story. Not a true one, mind you, but entertaining.
But so did Copernicus, who according to news reports was recently moved from an unmarked grave into a cathedral…
His unmarked grave was underneath the floor of Fromberg Cathedral. He died as a priest in good standing. He was buried in an unmarked grave (with other priests) because at the time of his death, though his ideas were being discussed by astronomers, astrologers and mathematicians, he had not achieved the notoriety that he would in coming years.
…for having been courageous, correct, and faithful (!) in affirming the heliocentricity of the universe.
Ah, yes, the “Copernicus was persecuted by the Church” or “Copernicus was afraid of being persecuted by the Church” fantasy. The truth is a bit more mundane. Though Copernicus was reluctant to publish his work on heliocentrism, but because he wished to avoid public scorn (i.e. not from Churchmen but from your average man-on-the-street, who more often than not had little education). In fact, it was a Cardinal who badgered him to publish it. Finally Copernicus, as he got on in years, as he wrote to Paul III, yielded to the entreaties of this Cardinal, of Bishop Giese of Culm, and of other learned men to surrender his manuscripts for publication. He dedicated his work to the Pope.
In the long run, Protestants, who had some freedom to interpret the bible personally, accepted heliocentrism somewhat more quickly.
This claim has appeared in various places without a single citation made to support it. Given the ferocious opposition to heliocentrism on the part of 16th century Protestants, it strains credulity to posit that this claim is anything more than sectarian wishful thinking. George Joachim Rheticus, who had left his chair in mathematics at Wittenburg to study under Copernicus and was charged with editing his master’s work, wanted to take it to Wittenburg to publish it, but could not due to the hostility to heliocentrism of the Sola Scriptura Protestants there (Wittenburg was a fervently Lutheran stronghold; only the treatise on trigonometry was published there).
Catholics, especially in Spain and Italy, had to be more cautious in the religious climate of the Counter Reformation, as the case of Galileo clearly demonstrates.
Galileo suggested that heliocentrism contradicted certain passages in Scripture. In an era when Protestants were claiming that the Church did not adhere to Scripture, having a professor at one their own universities claiming Scripture was “wrong” – and not merely in need of a revised interpretation of, say, the use of “phenomenological” language” – was just about the last thing the Church needed at that time. If only both Galileo and those attacking him on Scriptural grounds had remembered the words of St. Augustine…
“One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.”
…or of St. Thomas Aquinas, who stated (to paraphrase) that when the facts prove an interpretation of Scripture to be untenable, it’s time to re-think your interpretation: it’s likely there would not been much of a dust-up between the two parties.
Indeed, there are more passages in Scripture to support something called “geocentrism” than there are that condemn something called “homosexuality”
If Scripture was a science book, you’d have a point. As it is not (read Augusting quote above for clarification), the claim that Scripture “supports” geocentrism is a mistake of interpretation. Your link to a Catholic individual who holds geocentrism to be true – as opposed to the Church, which does not – is comical in that you actually think finding a Catholic who holds an opinion far removed what the Church holds somehow supports your theory of what the Church holds.
Here’s a quote attributed to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine:…
You mean the same Bellarmine who stated:
“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”
That Bellarmine?
Funny that you did not quote any of Galileo’s contemporary scientists that thought heliocentrism wrong, such as Tycho Brahe and Francis Bacon, neither of whom cited religious reasons for doing so. It is amusing that you also omit that it is now readily admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof his theory (many of his supporting arguments were indeed wrong), and that Thomas Huxley – a 19th century agnostic and certainly not one in possession of any affection for the Catholic Church – after examining the case determined that the opponents of Galileo “had rather the best of it”.
Many leaders of the Church acted rather rashly and stupidly in regards to Galileo, but the Church never held geocentrism as dogma, and the ill-advised and excessive condemnation of heliocentrism made by the Congregation of the Index in the latter stage of the Galileo case does not come close to meeting the criteria of “infallibly claimed doctrine”.
So, what you have demonstrated is not that the Church has a problem with science, but that you have a problem with the Church.
Cordially,
GR
____________________________________
Sources:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/catholic_church_lets_copernicus_out_of_hell/
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm
http://http//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/22/world/main6509699.shtml
http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-robert-bellarmine/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
June 1st, 2010 | 3:27 pm
[...] the rest of the statement, and here is Joe Carter’s response: I would really like to hear more from the President on this topic. Perhaps he could explain how [...]
June 1st, 2010 | 3:34 pm
While Copernicus was a cathedral canon, he was not a priest.
June 1st, 2010 | 4:32 pm
Charlie Collier: Actually, I wasn’t trying to say that “LGBT practices are intrinsically disordered,” though I can see why you might think so. The notion of intrinsic disorder carries too much theoretical baggage (some of which you pointed out) for the simple point I was trying to make. All I was really trying to say is that any lifestyle that reinforces a deep, fundamental disharmony between one’s biological and psychological natures cannot be a good thing for anyone. Indeed, it seems intrinsically harmful. I might add, isn’t the fact that transgendered persons go to such lengths to try to reestablish that harmony evidence for the point I’m trying to make?
June 1st, 2010 | 5:03 pm
I should have been more careful in my previous comment and said “the fact that SOME transgendered persons go to such lengths … .” In particular, I had in mind transgendered persons that are transsexual and seek hormone therapy or even sexual reassignment surgery.
June 1st, 2010 | 5:10 pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin,
If only you had taken as much pleasure reading what I wrote as you clearly did writing against it, you might not have taken so many wild swipes at the windmill.
Joe Carter claimed Copernicus’ theory was challenged solely on account of its contradiction of Aristotelian science and NOT on account of its contradiction of Scripture. My follow-up post was intended to refute that claim, that’s all, and we can now add your own remarks to the evidence that Carter is wrong. So, thanks for the assist. All the other details surrounding the controversies sparked by heliocentric theory are not germane to the point I was making.
Moreover, Carter is the one who comes close to turning the Bible into a science book, not me.
I’m glad to see the additional quote by Bellarmine, especially since it achieves the same effect as the one I quoted—it demonstrates that Carter is wrong, there was indeed an early perception that heliocentrism contradicted Scripture and tradition. Shocker—Catholic cardinals like Bellarmine were actually more concerned about Christian doctrine than they were about Aristotelian science!
My view is the same as Augustine’s, the same as Aquinas’, and it’s why I’m suspicious of those who claim that the Bible straightforwardly demands that I reject any and all evidence for the biological basis of homosexuality. There may turn out to be no such basis, but I see no need to rush to judgment about this. If the Bible is not a science book, as you say, then I think we can be a good deal more relaxed about research into the subject.
If Augustine and Aquinas are right, then couldn’t we be required to adjust our interpretations of the “naturalness” of “homosexuality” in light of new knowledge?
Lastly, Galileo might have forgotten some of what he read in Augustine—who could remember it all?—but didn’t he quote Augustine repeatedly in his own defense?
June 1st, 2010 | 5:43 pm
Except for the fact that there are self-accepting gay folks whose self-acceptance has resulted in what looks rather convincingly like harmony between their biological and psychological “natures.” Not all gay folk are tortured by their gayness as such, but by the attempts to suppress it, and their functionality in relationships (familial and otherwise), work, creativity, sociability, philanthropy, et cet. appears to be enhanced by their self-acceptance. One can try to deny that conceptually, but the individual fruits manifest the possibility of something else. All you need is one example of this to call the universalizing of the negative into question. You might object to that as an argumentative matter, but the problem is that it’s increasingly convincing to people in their life experience, and so far the conceptual arguments are failing to address that.
June 1st, 2010 | 5:48 pm
“Surely you realize that there is a difference within the homosexual community between being “committed” and being monogamous.
I’m not sure what these semantic games have to do with the underlying issue.”
I believe Joe is referring to the recent study in San Francisco where over 50% of gay men involved in “committed” relationships were having sex with men other than their partner.
Andrew Sullivan, in his book supporting gay marriage, had also stated that one of the benefits of recognizing gay marriage is that heterosexuals might start getting over their “hang-ups” about monogamy.
“This strawman allows Diggs to avoid all the evidence that genes and biology do, in fact, play a significant role in homosexuality.”
The question is, “How significant?” Dr. Dean Hamer acknowledges that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. “Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality,” Scientific American, November 1995, p. 26.
The author of one of the studies you quote, Richard Pillard, believes sexual orientation is based upon a combination of factors.
“Moreover, I don’t see this as proof of anything other than the fact that some homosexuals who want to can suppress their sexual desires for extended periods of time. Heterosexuals can remain celibate if they want to as well. It doesn’t prove you can actually change your orientation.”
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., of Columbia University, disagrees with you.
June 1st, 2010 | 6:08 pm
“In short, there’s no credible data that shows reduced lifespan for homosexuals.”
Apparently no one told Gens Hellquist and the Canadian Rainbox Health Coalition. They filed a complaint last May with the Canadian Human Rights Commission asserting that additional resources had to be allocated to meet the special health care needs of the gay community.
In their complaint, Hellquist and the CRHC allege that gay men: (1) have a twenty year reduced life expectancy; (2) are far more likely to commit suicide; (3) are far more likely to suffer from addiction; (4) are far more likely to suffer from depression; (5) comprise 45% of all new HIV infections; and (6) are at a higher risk for certain types of cancer.
June 1st, 2010 | 8:17 pm
Dear Liam: Exceptions do not disprove natural law teaching; in fact, given the vast variety of human practices, I would be surprised if there were no exceptions. I’m sure there are otherwise wonderful adulterers, as well.
The exceptions are rather like the 90-year-old who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day while drinking his daily fifth of vodka. Just as there always will be people who seem to contradict the laws of health (which still apply to all), so there will be those who seem to contradict the law written in our hearts.
One thing that Christianity specifically adds to the (pre-Christian) natural law is the “original sin” idea–that humans might even violate the natural laws WHILE KNOWING they are doing so, and to a degree find satisfaction in doing so.
June 1st, 2010 | 11:59 pm
The question is, “How significant?” Dr. Dean Hamer acknowledges that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.
The concordance rate found in Bailey and Pillard was 50% for gay twins. Square that and you very roughly get the percentage of variability in homosexuality attributed to genetics (with some important caveats). 50% squared is, of course, 25%. I don’t disagree with that at all and, indeed, nothing in my comments suggested otherwise.
The author of one of the studies you quote, Richard Pillard, believes sexual orientation is based upon a combination of factors.
And so do I. You seem to be making the mistake of equating genetics with biology or of thinking that since I said genes and biology play a critical role in homosexuality, that I must think they explain 100% of all homosexual cases. I never said that.
His co-author J. Michael Bailey says the evidence is sufficient at this point to say that homosexuality in boys develops in very early life due to a combination of factors and is unchangeable.
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., of Columbia University, disagrees with you.
This is an empty appeal to authority. A quick check on Spitzer’s research shows it has many of the same fatal flaws as the Masters and Johnson study I critiqued above: small sample size, no control group, serious sample selection bias issues, and inclusion of bisexuals in the sample. Moreover, the outcome measure is entirely self-reported so we don’t know how many people were lying to the surveyors.
Out of 143 “ex-gay” men, only 16 in his study reported that they were heterosexual. And we don’t know whether these 16 men considered themselves bisexual or gay beforehand. This is your proof that people can change their sexual orientation?
As Spitzer himself said, “I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”
June 2nd, 2010 | 12:21 am
i discussed this post with my co-worker over lunch today. here’s what he had to say about LGBT pride month:
“i think the president should declare each july from 2010 onwards “bestiality and necrophilia pride month.”
“we practitioners of these marginalized arts have for too long been overlooked and stigmatized! we have rights and dignity.”
“i am an accountant by day; i therefore contribute to society. but i am also a necrophiliac and love bestiality. so president obama makes me feel left out; LGBT pride month is not inclusive enough. people like me enrich the fabric of our society too; we deserve a month of our own.”
“after all, it’s obvious to everyone that bestiality and necrophilia don’t harm anyone. heck, even my yale philosophy professor once wondered if animals might enjoy a little human action now and then!”
anyway, i just thought i’d share another perspective on this topic.
June 2nd, 2010 | 10:02 am
“His co-author J. Michael Bailey says the evidence is sufficient at this point to say that homosexuality in boys develops in very early life due to a combination of factors and is unchangeable.”
How early? What is the catalyst for this development? What evidence do you have that it is always unchangeable?
“This is an empty appeal to authority.”
But at least I have an authority to appeal to. In several of your comments you assert that a homosexual orientation is unchangeable, yet you provide no proof for this. (Are you aware that Spitzer was one of the main proponents in 1973 to have the APA remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders?)
“A quick check on Spitzer’s research shows it has many of the same fatal flaws as the Masters and Johnson study I critiqued above: small sample size, no control group, serious sample selection bias issues, and inclusion of bisexuals in the sample. Moreover, the outcome measure is entirely self-reported so we don’t know how many people were lying to the surveyors.”
If you have read interviews with Spitzer, you would know that he does not believe appropriate studies could ever be done because: (1) reparitive therapists are not scientists and don’t do studies; and (2) the National Institute of Mental Health would not do such a study because it is dogma that sexuality is unchangeable.
June 2nd, 2010 | 10:34 pm
BenT wonders how “biologically speaking” LGBT people can become mothers and fathers as LGBT?
I suppose the same way that Mary and Jesus became Jesus’ parents: through the mystery and power of God that is always mediated through human biology, i.e., through human beings are both flesh and spirit — sometimes through the sexual reproduction of a man and woman, and sometimes not, but always through love if they are to truly realize the vocation of parenthood.
June 3rd, 2010 | 3:48 am
I think that the proper Christian response should always be welcoming and acceptance of those who are gay, etc. I think that it’s fair to say that being gay or lesbian is difficult enough, without having to deal with the lack of understanding that a gay christian often finds from fellow church members.
There are a lot of STD’s out there, but I think that the evidence is clear: having a lot of sexual partners is what causes this, not one’s sexual orientation. It’s simply a fallacy to argue that being a sexually active homosexual puts one at greater risk of acquiring an STD. What puts you at risk, is being promiscuous, whether one’s heterosexual, or homosexual.
The empirical data shows that, without question, being homosexual, like most human traits, is a result of strong genetic predispositions. It’s not a choice. Most intelligent Christians acknowledge this. The result, has been, to instruct those who are homosexual, that they can be just as christian as heterosexuals, but, they must remain forever celebite. Frankly, this strikes me as cruel. The best approach, is to advocate monogomous relationships. In other words, Christianity has always advocated monogomy for heterosexuals, and the same should be advocated for homosexuals. All sorts of moral problems arise, or potentially arise, with multiple sex partners, regardless of whether it’s with the same sex, or the opposite sex.
I have always found it compelling that Christ never said a word about homosexuality. One would think that if it was so crucial, the gospels would mention it, at least once.
June 3rd, 2010 | 11:50 am
“What puts you at risk, is being promiscuous, whether one’s heterosexual, or homosexual.”
True, but it is well established that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than the general population (of course there are always exceptions).
In addition, based on the recent study that came out of San Francisco, over half of the homosexual men in “committed” relationships were having sex with someone other than their partner.
“The empirical data shows that, without question, being homosexual, like most human traits, is a result of strong genetic predispositions. It’s not a choice.”
There is plenty of question about the genetic component to homosexuality. Most scientists regard it as being a combination of genetic, biological, psychological and social factors. That being said, I agree that people do not simply decide one day to be attracted to members of the same sex.
“The result, has been, to instruct those who are homosexual, that they can be just as christian as heterosexuals, but, they must remain forever celebite. Frankly, this strikes me as cruel.”
Why do you think it is cruel? The Church thinks you will have a better life if you do not engage in homosexual acts. You may disagree with that, but I do not believe for a minute the Church is trying to be cruel.
“I have always found it compelling that Christ never said a word about homosexuality. One would think that if it was so crucial, the gospels would mention it, at least once.”
But he did talk about a man and a woman becoming one, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Furthermore, St. Paul expressly condemns homosexuality.
June 4th, 2010 | 3:37 am
Brian English: Thanks for your well thought comments. This is a vexing issue, and there are certianly well meaning people on both sides.
It’s perhaps true that homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. But there’s considerable evidence that homosexual and heterosexual men are about the same in terms of their inclinations toward sexual behavior, and what stops heterosexual men from being as promiscuous as homosexual men, is women! That is, women are not as promiscuous, by nature as men. Therefore, they prevent heterosexual men from manifesting their sexual inclinations. But since homosexual men both have the same inclinations, there’s no ”brake”, if you will, on their sexual behavior. Lesbian women, are no more promiscuous than heterosexual women.
So, being a man makes one prone to promiscuity. Being a woman makes one prone to monogomy. Of course, these are statistical averages, and therefore there will be plenty of exceptions.
Whether homosexuality is a result primarily of genetic or environmental factors, is somewhat irrelavent, since there’s no credible evidence that one’s sexual orientation can be changed. Therefore, why not try to moderate the sexual behavior in healthy ways? Why not allow the Church to, as it were, be the brakes on male homosexual behavior, in a way similar to how women are with heterosexual men? It seems reasonable to me to argue that homosexual individuals should be monogomous, as heterosexual people are.
Perhaps my statement that the Church’s prohibition on ALL homosexual activity is “cruel”, was a little strong. But it’s certianly unfair, since homosexual persons cannot change, and for people generally, to be mentally healthy, they need to have a sexual life, within proper moral limits. Certianly the Church is not trying to be cruel, and I’m sorry if I implied that. It’s clearly well meaning. But sexuality is an important part of an adult human life, and to deny it completely, seems unreasonable and unfair.
My guess is many religious homosexual persons, who could be a great asset to Christianity, are turned away, because the Church’s prohibition is unlivable.
Yes, it’s true, many homosexual couples cheat on each other, but so do many heterosexual couples. Neither is morally acceptable. But since both heterosexual and homosexual men both have the same sexual proclivities, toward increased frequency, and diversity in sexual partners, and since heterosexual married men are capable of being faithful to their wives, it stands to reason that homosexual men are capable of the same monogomous commitment.
My guess is that if it was important, Christ would have mentioned it. He certainly didn’t make a mistake! He probably would have stated it, at least once, so there would be no ambiguity, but he didn’t.
Yes, you’re right, Paul did condemn homosexuality. He also stated that slavery should be tolerated, and women should submit to their husbands. Therefore, just because Paul asserted something, doesn’t mean he’s infalliable. He was a human being, flawed liked the rest of us. He was certianly a great saint, and thinker, and therefore one should take whatever he said seriously, but one is obligated to reject him, if his assertions don’t withstand logical scrutiny.
June 4th, 2010 | 8:59 am
“My guess is that if it was important, Christ would have mentioned it. He certainly didn’t make a mistake! He probably would have stated it, at least once, so there would be no ambiguity, but he didn’t.”
We do hear this statement a lot. However, the Gospels indicate that Christ delivered two men living together who had “akatharsian” spirits. This is the same word Paul occasionally uses for homosexuality.
June 4th, 2010 | 10:58 am
“It’s perhaps true that homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. But there’s considerable evidence that homosexual and heterosexual men are about the same in terms of their inclinations toward sexual behavior, and what stops heterosexual men from being as promiscuous as homosexual men, is women!”
I think this is true to an extent, but I think it underscores the complementary nature of the relationship between men and women.
I also think you should track down a study done in Los Angeles a few years ago that provides some really shocking numbers on the level of anonymous sex in public places (parks, public restrooms, etc.) engaged in by gay men. That type of promiscuity really goes into a different category.
“Whether homosexuality is a result primarily of genetic or environmental factors, is somewhat irrelavent, since there’s no credible evidence that one’s sexual orientation can be changed.”
Well, I actually think there is evidence on both sides of the issue. At catholiceducation.org, under the “Sexuality” category, there is a large compilation of articles on this issue that you might be interested in looking at.
“for people generally, to be mentally healthy, they need to have a sexual life, within proper moral limits.”
I often hear this, but I am not aware of any study that demonstrates, and my personal experience has not led me to believe, that celibate people are any more prone to mental illness than those having sex.
“It’s clearly well meaning. But sexuality is an important part of an adult human life, and to deny it completely, seems unreasonable and unfair.”
But the Church concluded, at its inception, that engaging in certain sexual activity was harmful to a person. It is trying to help people live better lives, not be unreasonable or unfair.
“My guess is many religious homosexual persons, who could be a great asset to Christianity, are turned away, because the Church’s prohibition is unlivable.”
Which is exactly why this is such an important issue. The Church has to state the truth, while at the same time welcoming all those who seek God. That is why there is a Catholic group like Courage.
As far as the prohibition being unlivable, Father Judge, the priest killed at the WTC on 9-11, certainly accomplished it. I would be shocked if there were not saints in heaven right now who had borne this cross. I also think it would take the development of an especially close relationship with God to comply with the Church’s teaching on this, but it isn’t impossible.
“Yes, it’s true, many homosexual couples cheat on each other, but so do many heterosexual couples. Neither is morally acceptable.”
But that is not what the SF study was talking about (the Times had an article on the study in the past few months). These were open relationships, where it was completely acceptable for each partner to have sex with others. That is consistent with Andrew Sullivan’s claim that gay marriage could help heterosexuals get over “hang-ups” about monogamy.
“My guess is that if it was important, Christ would have mentioned it.”
As I indicated, He did talk of the union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You also have to remember, homosexuality was considered an abomination in that culture, so no express condemnation was necessary.
“Yes, you’re right, Paul did condemn homosexuality. He also stated that slavery should be tolerated, and women should submit to their husbands.”
Let’s be fair to St. Paul. Slavery was an intrinsic part of Roman culture (as it was of every culture I can think of at that time) so there really was no choice but to tolerate it. The important point was, in the eyes of God, the slave and master were equal.
He did say wives should submit to their husbands, but he also said husbands should honor their wives, so it was a reciprocal relationship of respect.
June 5th, 2010 | 4:30 am
Craig Payne: It really depends on how one interprets this passage. It does not state, in the original greek, in an unambiguous way, that these individuals were homosexual. I think that if this was/is such an essential issue, we would have evidence of Jesus condemning homosexuality, explicitly, and without equivocation, so no one could be confused.
Brian English:the fact of the matter is, frankly, heterosexual men, would probably behave in a similar fashion, if women allowed it. Not all men, but not all gay men behave this way either. Many homosexual men condemn such promiscuous behavior, as many heterosexual men condemn heterosexual promiscuity.
Also, the fact that homosexual men are not fully part of the mainstream Christian culture, means they often take refuge in a subculture that reinforces this behavior.
If homosexual men were fully welcomed in the church, and expected to, if they choose to have a partner, behave faithfully and monogomously, like their heterosexual counterparts, a lot of this behavior of promiscuity would disappear.
Andrew Sullivan, is a sexual libertarian. I don’t share his views. Marriage, would, I believe, do the opposite: provide a structural framework where monogomy could work.
Homosexual men would be inhibited by by Church, from behaving in promiscuous behavior, in a way analogous to women inhibiting heterosexual men from behaving promiscuously.
This poit cannot be overemphasized: homosexual men, and heterosexual men, have the same tendency toward promiscuity. It’s just that women, (and the church) have a civilizing, inhibiting affect, on heterosexual men. Why not allow that same civilizing affect to occur with homosexual men?
Your assertion that homosexuality can be changed, is without a scientific basis. Often, there are well meaning groups that arise, that claim to ”cure” homosexuality, but there’s simply no credible, rational, empirical evidence for this. The mainstream psychiatric community does not endorse this, and, in fact does not consider homosexuality a disorder to be ”cured”. I know, I know, there’s the conspiritorial claim that political pressure, from gay groups, rather than scientific evidence, is what persuaded psychiatry to take this position, but there’s no credible evidence for this.
All mainsream scientific and psychiatric groups have concluded that one’s sexual orientation cannot be changed. Also, the Catholic Church seems to have implicitly, at least, endorsed this notion, since they do accept homosexual persons, but make the distinction between inclinations, and behavior, and accept the former, while rejecting the latter.
You say that Jesus really didn’t need to condemn homosexuality, because it was widely recognized, in that culture, to be bad. So why did Paul reject it? By your reasoning, since Paul was a younger contemporary, and in fact, his epistles pre-date the gospels, he would have no need to engage in such superpluous writings.
Yes, slavery was part of roman culture. But this doesn’t excuse Paul for not couragously condemning such an odious practice. He was already proclaiming the gospel, which was obviously new, and dangerous, that ultimately got him martyered. And, since he accepted a practice (slavery), because it was part of roman culture, not because it was compatible with the gospel, why not argue that he advocated condemning homosexuality, because it was part of roman culture, and not compatible with the gospel?
your assertion that Paul believed women and men were equal, cannot be reconciled with the evidence. True, he believed women should be treated with respect, but they also, in his view, should be ”silent” in church, should ”obey” their husbands, (but men don’t have to ”obey” their wives), and the husband is the ”head” of his wife. Clearly, it’s fair to say that he did not view men and women as equals.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact