At a conference where I spoke this week, the question came up again: “Why would you call yourself a ‘gay Christian’?” Others have posted about this—I’m thinking of Joshua Gonnerman and Melinda Selmys and Eve Tushnet—but I never have, so here’s my brief take on the question.
First, what’s behind the question? One of my interlocutors this week suggested that a parallel case would be if someone were to label himself an “adulterous Christian” or a “stealing Christian.” Those terms are self-evidently problematic in that they make sinful behaviors part of an identity description for believers, and therefore gay Christians should find their chosen label equally problematic. My response to this is that those are not, in fact, parallel cases. “Gay” in current parlance doesn’t necessarily refer to sexual behavior; it can just as easily refer to one’s sexual orientation and say nothing, one way or the other, about how one is choosing to express that orientation. So, whereas “stealing Christian” certainly denotes the behavior of stealing, “gay Christian” may simply refer to the erotic inclinations of the Christian who claims that identity and leave open the question of whether he or she is sexually active with members of his or her own sex.
This is why, by the way, I rarely use the phrase “gay Christian” without adding another adjective: “celibate.” To call myself a “celibate gay Christian” specifies both my sexual orientation and the way I’m choosing to live it out. (More on that in a moment.)
But I take it there’s a second, deeper question lurking under the “Why do you call yourself a ‘gay Christian’?” question, and it’s this: “By using the label ‘gay’ for yourself, aren’t you simply accepting that same-sex attraction is an unalterable part of your personality and thereby giving up on the possibility of healing and change?”
At least two things strike me as important to say in response to this. First, the best scientific study we have of sexual orientation change efforts urges caution in holding out the possibility of “change” to any and all gay Christians (see Warren Throckmorton’s comments on the Jones/Yarhouse study’s already circumspect conclusions). Reflecting on the results of this study, Joshua Gonnerman concludes:
We need not absolutely reject orientation change. But it is frequently presented as a strong hope, an ideal to be striven towards, with good chances of success. For a person who is deeply struggling with her sexuality, who desperately wants, as many people do, and as I once did, not to be gay, the ready offer of orientation change can become an object of fixation, even an idol in which all of one’s hope is placed…
Too often, I have seen people who placed their hope in orientation change in this way come crashing down when they realized it wasn’t working. On a psychological level, it can lead to depression, to self-loathing, to suicidal tendencies. The message that the absence of successful change makes one a lesser Christian or some kind of failure is always present, either explicitly or implicitly.
This brings me to a second response to the question, “Have you given up hope?” On the contrary, calling oneself a “celibate gay Christian” may be a way of expressing, not giving up, hope—but expressing it in a way that doesn’t link that hope to orientation change. Claiming the label “celibate gay Christian” means, for me, recognizing my homosexual orientation as a kind of “thorn in the flesh.” When the apostle Paul used that phrase in his correspondence with the Corinthian church, he made clear that his “thorn” was indeed an unwelcome source of pain (2 Corinthians 12:7). But he also made clear that it had become the very occasion for his experience of the power of the risen Christ and, therefore, a paradoxical site of grace (2 Corinthians 12:8). Paul, I think, would have had no qualms about labeling himself a “thorn-pricked Christian”—not because he recognized his thorn as a good thing, in and of itself, but because it had become for him the means by which he encountered the power of Christ. Likewise, living with an unchanged homosexual orientation may be for many of us the means by which we discover new depths of grace, as well as new vocations of service to others.
Commenting on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and the homosexual partnerships that some of Paul’s readers had been involved in prior to their baptism, J. I. Packer writes about Paul’s gospel:
With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today’s homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms.
Finding the moral empowering—and the grace and consolation—of the Holy Spirit “in homosexual terms” is, it seems to me, what leads many of us to label ourselves “celibate gay Christians.”
(Cross-posted at Spiritual Friendship)
February 1st, 2013 | 4:38 pm
But every single Christian has temptations or “thorns in the flesh,” usually more than one. Why hyphenate your decision to follow Christ by one particular temptation?
When talking to other people with SSA who might want to follow Christ, it would be a good thing to let them know that you are struggling with the same temptation, but that is a different thing, isn’t it?
February 1st, 2013 | 4:55 pm
I agree with Douglas Johnson and would add that many or most people associate “gay” with being an active homosexual not someone striving to be chaste.
February 1st, 2013 | 5:05 pm
When talking to other people with SSA who might want to follow Christ, it would be a good thing to let them know that you are struggling with the same temptation, but that is a different thing, isn’t it?
I think Wesley Hill is always talking to gay people who are following Christ, or want to but don’t feel they can. For gay people—and especially young gay people—why should there not be role models who show a Christian life is possible and speak openly of how and why? Are people like Wesley Hill supposed to reach other gay Christians or potential gay Christians through some kind of underground secret network?
Young gay people, especially those who are determined to live as Catholics or “conservative” Christians, feel alone. Why should they not know of at least a few people who have faced the same issues as they have faced and are doing well?
I don’t agree with Wesley Hill about the morality of homosexuality, but he is a real hero for being an openly “celibate gay Christian.” He may very well be saving lives of young gay people who might otherwise despair.
I personally think it is great that there are now many well known and well respected openly gay people like Ellen DeGeneris, Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Anderson Cooper, Jim Parsons, etc. But do Christians really want it to be the case that young people who discover they are gay know of no other gay people but celebrities?
February 1st, 2013 | 5:57 pm
Since when are we willing to identify with a lifestyle rather than our own individuality?
February 1st, 2013 | 6:04 pm
I second the thought that temptations, “thorns in the flesh” are matters best discussed in private settings.
As Douglas Johnson writes, all Christians are subject to temptations. There is no need to provide specific information, except, as he comments,when you are with others who are experiencing the same difficulty and would benefit from prayer and encouragement.
February 1st, 2013 | 7:18 pm
“celibate gay Christian” is equivocal. All celibate
says is you are not married to a woman. Chaste would e the right word, and if you are not chaste, put the pen down and quit pretending Christianity.
“
February 1st, 2013 | 7:22 pm
(comment got posted before I was finished.)gay” is a political designation. If you suffer SSA, then call it that.
“Christian who suffers SSA chastely.”
February 1st, 2013 | 7:31 pm
While I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this label, I have reservations when scientific research becomes the measure by which we judge the extent to which our inclinations can be changed. It seems to me that one’s theology of creation, fall and redemption is more relevant to this discussion than the latest empirical studies. Should I call myself a lustful Christian because “science” shows that those who have a history of lustful inclination are not likely to lose such an inclination?
As for your second response, I’m just not sure if the label really communicates what you intend it to communicate in common parlance. I think I would prefer celibate “reforming” gay Christian (as awkward as it sounds). This way, you neither triumphalistically declare that you no longer have inclinations to sinful behaviour nor deny your faith in the Spirit of Jesus Christ’s ongoing and ultimate transformation.
February 1st, 2013 | 8:11 pm
“Why hyphenate your decision to follow Christ by one particular temptation?”
I’ll let the author speak for himself; but one answer I imagine is it helps to answer the question of why one is not married or dating or courting.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:07 pm
I have heard speakers identify themselves as recovering alchoholics–another inborn trait, which can be controlled, and which does not define a person but does define what activities he or she partakes in. The speaker identified himself this way to then explain how he lived with this difficulty. I see no problem with the approach presented here.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:49 pm
I have some of the concerns as the commenters above, but I would hope to pose them a little more charitably than what I’ve read here.
Regardless, I find this a fascinating question. Ultimately, I think it leads to this /other/ question: what is “gay” at all?
No doubt you’re thought about this much more than I, but I have come to believe that there is a sin of identity even apart from the act of sex. If and when we give our identity of self an equal or greater place to that of our identity in Christ, we sin. Of course, regardless of our persuasions- sexual or otherwise -we are all prone to and capable of that. It isn’t for me to say what your sin is.
So I wonder, could we read it: neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female- straight nor gay?
February 1st, 2013 | 11:09 pm
A sexual orientation is not a “temptation” or a “lifestyle.”
Anyone who has a sexual orientation ought to be able to understand that.
Gay people should be able to understand what it is to be straight (and I think they do), and straight people should be able to understand what it is to be gay (and there is a lot of evidence here that many of them don’t).
It is no more a “temptation,” in and of itself, to be gay than to be straight. In terms of traditional Christian morality, an unmarried gay person is pretty much in the same boat as an unmarried straight person. Neither may have sexual relationships. Of course, an unmarried straight person can date and engage the limited sexual behavior of courtship, and a gay person cannot. That’s a major emotional difference, but in terms of “temptation,” the unmarried gay life and the unmarried straight life for traditional Christians is very similar.
The word lifestyle should be banned in these discussions. The notion that someone who calls himself gay is saying he lives the “gay lifestyle” is as nonsensical as the notion that someone who calls himself straight is saying he lives the “straight lifestyle” or the “heterosexual lifestyle.” To be gay is not to have any particular “lifestyle.” The “lifestyle” of a married heterosexual couple raising two children is likely to be very much like the “lifestyle” of a same-sex married couple raising two children. It would be meaningless to say the same-sex married couple were living the gay “lifestyle.”
February 2nd, 2013 | 4:06 am
I am sorry, but to use the word “gay” in our language as Americans or Brits, indicates a lifestyle, as part of the lgtb grouping.
To say one has same-sex attraction is absolutely different than identifying with being gay.
Words mean something and form how we think.
Gay bars, gay clubs, gay shops, gay stores, gay cruises, gay day at Disney, etc. No, use another word, another phrase more in keeping with a Christian identity FIRST. We are all Christians first.
February 2nd, 2013 | 7:39 am
Re comment by David Nickol:
Does the design of the human body and the necessity for male and female for the transmission of life mean nothing? Do the words mother and father mean whatever we say they mean. Mr. Nickol mentions his mother. Is it not correct to say that she is female by definition.
If male and female are simply necessary to conception of a child, how can a heterosexual couple raising children and a same-sex couple raising children be comparable?
I think that people who cannot understand how human sexuality can be misdirected or distorted are few; very few indeed. This powerful, primitive drive must be carefully disciplined, actively shaped, and integrated.
It is not surprising that some people for many and diverse reasons do not adhere to the design of the human body.
Adults have every right to privacy and to respect for their private choices.
Problems arise when children’s human rights are involved. A child has a right to his or her mother and father which should not be denied in order to satisfy adult needs.
February 2nd, 2013 | 8:29 am
Re: Comment by David Nickol:
Is the physical design and hormonal difference between males and females of no particular significance?
If it is significant, how can you argue that the lives of a male and female couple and a same-sex couple are not likely at the level of human essential characteristics to be radically different? (Needless to say we are not discussing household routines, life in the community).
Mr. Nickol has in a previous comment referred to his mother. He had no need to inform us that her sex is “female”. He did require, as do we all, a male father and a female mother for his conception.
Human sexuality is a powerful, primitive drive in need of control, discipline, and integration with the wholeness of being. No person who is aware of this will presume to understand the various ways in which this drive might be misdirected.
Adults are entitled to profound respect for their personal choices well-lived; they are entitled as a matter of fundamental right to privacy.
Children also have rights. To commandeer a child’s life by artificially depriving him or her of care and protection by the man and woman from whose union he or she was born is wrong. It should not be done.
February 2nd, 2013 | 10:54 am
“Since when are we willing to identify with a lifestyle rather than our own individuality?” – supertradmum
Probably for the same reason you identity yourself as a “supertradmum”, on this and other websites, rather than your name.
February 2nd, 2013 | 3:48 pm
I must agree with David Nickol and Wesley Hill.
I’m a Christian and though it is a technically accurate label for me, I never really like the term “Christian with same sex attraction” because of how clinical it sounds–we don’t do that for other procvlities toward sins. Sin is often (and probably more often than not) NOT clinical. But it is a propensity to warp God’s design. Sin can be profoundly “natural,” even if it is against God’s design for nature. (is a desire for revenge when being wronged anything but natural, for example?).
I agree, therefore, with Hill that it is more like being a “thorn-pricked” Christian than saying I’m an “Adulterous Christian”.
What’s more is contemporary chaste gay / queer Christians, like Wesley Hill or Melinda Selmy’s (whom has another apt reflection here: http://sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/2012/12/orientation-change-vs-mixed-orientation.html) have always been reminders that I’m not alone.
This homosexuality is “best dealt with privately” business some users speak of reeks of attempting to silence people and would only further isolate Christians whom aspire to live faithfully in all areas of our lives–including sexuality.
Hill has written about it before, and I find it to be true, that many gay Christians ears tune in when they find someone who is “safe” to talk to– when they’re willing to talk about homosexuality– it’s like having a vigilant tuner searching for people who may understand. Wesley’s book and blog have helped me an incredible amount. And while Christ, as for any Christian, remains the cornerstone of my identity I see nothing wrong with identifying as a chaste gay Christian.
We identify as many things. Why labels on sexuality should be excluded, and other “labels” not (particularly when it’s a simple and apt accurate description of a big part of my life as a…
February 2nd, 2013 | 4:21 pm
“Gay bars, gay clubs, gay shops, gay stores, gay cruises, gay day at Disney, etc. No, use another word, another phrase more in keeping with a Christian identity FIRST. We are all Christians first.”
I think you are somewhat confused. If you are a “Christian” first, then you use “Christian” as the noun, not the adjective. And that means, according to the way language is structured the adjective “gay” (or whatever term you want to use) precedes the noun “Christian.” If someone termed themselves a “Christian-gay” or a “Christian homosexual” or what have you, that would be, in essence, putting “Christian” second.
February 2nd, 2013 | 4:38 pm
“in homosexual terms” is a really key concept to unraveling the appeal and usefulness of a term such as “celibate gay Christian”.
To a queer person such as myself, I understand that power exists in words, in definitions and in the use of language.
It took me a long time to find a straight Christian who was able to identify with how alienating and confusing it can be to be gay within a Christian community. He was a divorcé (his wife the adulteress), and it was through this lens that he was able to experience how there are barely visible exclusions in every day words such as: man, hope, Christian, everyone, the Church, love, marriage etc.
The way these words are used socially within churches often fail to include or acknowledge the divorcé as they do the homosexual. This pressure, this pervasive blindspot was enough to make him leave one congregation as he knew that some of the promises of participation implicitly did not include him.
“Celibate gay Christian” explains to you both the conditions through which the gay Christian is cooperating with you, but it does more – it explains the specific struggle with language, with representation, with inclusion, with recognition that comes with language.
For instance I’ve had a senior pastor extol to everyone in a cell group how he sees them as future leaders of other cell groups – but I knew that really, truly these words didn’t apply to me and that my presence in this room was conditional on never ever using certain words and personal identifiers to reveal myself.
“In homosexual terms” things are slightly different for “us”… as heterosexual-logic flows through so much of language. We do risk losing important ways of knowing ourselves if we only use your heterosexual words for every part of our lives.
February 2nd, 2013 | 4:56 pm
I would never refer to myself as a “democrat and/or republican Christian” or as an “American Christian” as any such adjectives would understandably create division and not unity. However, as I look back over my life there have been times that many believes spoke with great pride of being a “born-again” Christian, a “evangelical” Christian or a “charismatic” Christian. While these adjectives were still divisive, there was no social stigma. As someone who may have referred to himself 30-years ago as a “born again” Christian, I am not ready to judge anyone who feels the need to identify himself as a “gay” Christian.
I have a cousin who is also a “gay” Christian. I know he uses the term to let other believers know that he deals with a difficult issues and he covets their prayers. He also used the term among his friends and peers to let them know that he identifies with their struggles, but he does not share in the sexual aspect of their lifestyle.
Certainly, the term “gay”christian invites the next question — are you chaste? However, I think the terms also acknowledges a difficult struggle. I am thankful that Wesley Hill is a follower of Jesus, and I will pray for him and his struggle. As long as Wesley fells the need to identify himself as a “gay” Christian, I would give him the liberty to do so, and I look forward to the day when no one feels the need to call himself or herself anything other than a Christian.
February 2nd, 2013 | 5:35 pm
I wish there was an upvote/downvote system for these comments. This discussion is pretty disappointing after the freshness of the article.
The author uses “gay” as an adjective in addition to the adjective Christian. That does not mean he values his sexual identity (in terms in born of sexual preference) more than his allegiance to the Prince of Peace. I am an American Christian. I am a female Christian. I am a white Christian. All those things describe me, they certainly associate me with others. But it’s not like they trump my self-association with Christ by my using both terms together.
The reason one would combine particular adjectives, especially in this case, is that people (Christians and non) THINK of those adjectives “gay Christian” as not ever belonging together. People think gays aren’t ever Christians. They think people born with same sex desire aren’t next to us in the pews, longing for God as much as we (straights) are. For a long time, as one commenter mentioned, “gay” has been used primarily to describe wild parades, bars for meeting one night stands, and political movements. But that is not actually what the word refers to. It refers to which gender you are attracted to.
Christians are so begrudging to allow sexual identity even though we allow people to identify as young, old, black, white, etc. Why? Are we afraid a good God wouldn’t let people actually be gay? Do we honestly think it’s the same as having a “temptation” (such as my propensity to be selfish or petty or to gossip)? The point this article elevates is that being gay IS an aspect (ONE! of many!) that some Christians have to deal with. It is my opinion that gay Christians should be the heros among us. They are walking a very long hard road in pursuit of their Savior. Their thorn is a great one, and it merits our deepest support and love and…
February 2nd, 2013 | 6:21 pm
“If male and female are simply necessary to conception of a child, how can a heterosexual couple raising children and a same-sex couple raising children be comparable?”
Um… because both are raising children?
February 2nd, 2013 | 8:47 pm
The Church’s wisdom should be considered here when she makes distinctions between deep-seated homosexuality and transitory same sex attractions in candidates for priesthood and religious life. Candidates with transitory SSA are permitted to move ahead to ordination if they engage in the hard work of uncovering and working to resolve their conflicts of weak secure attachment relationships either with fathers, mothers or male peers and if the SSA is resolved several years before ordination.
Those with deep seated homosexuality are not permitted to study for the priesthood because they embrace the homosexual agenda for the culture. Specifically, they do not view homosexuality as a disordered inclination, as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are comfortable with their sexual attractions, subscribe to the increasingly prevalent belief that homosexuality is a normal variation in human sexuality, and think there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. Their beliefs make them highly vulnerable to sexual acting out.
My suspicion is that many of those who label themselves gay Christians embrace a similar agenda.
February 2nd, 2013 | 9:09 pm
I’d argue “Celibate gay Christian” is rhetorical suicide for the Evangelical position, as it cedes certain ground by implication. “Gay” is an identity, “Sam Sex Attraction” is an orientation. Much wiser to use the latter. Is a former gay, now married man with remaining SSA “gay”? Perhaps, but the label invites compromise and failure. I respect Hill’s right to identify as he wants, but as a general drift I don’t think it makes sense on the face of it.
February 3rd, 2013 | 5:14 am
I applaud the willingness to openly expose this particular thorn, precisely because NO ONE DOES. I dont think I’ve met a Christian who is both openly gay AND willing to call homosexual expression wrong. Gay students at my Christian college either suffer in silence and loneliness or fully embrace their sexual expression as OK. We need more role models like Wesley.
February 3rd, 2013 | 6:27 am
No, use another word, another phrase more in keeping with a Christian identity FIRST. We are all Christians first.
supertradmum, the English language is not structured on the speech patterns of Yoda. Adjectives that modify the subject of a sentence usually come first. “A red house” is not talking about the color red in general but is talking about a house first that has the property of being red. A ‘gay Christian’ is, in fact, putting the Christian first. A ‘Christian gay’ on the other hand, would be putting the gay first.
A Reader
If male and female are simply necessary to conception of a child, how can a heterosexual couple raising children and a same-sex couple raising children be comparable?
Certainly causing a child to be conceived and raising a child from infant to adult are quite different things…the first being a trivially easy task for many people.
Problems arise when children’s human rights are involved. A child has a right to his or her mother and father which should not be denied in order to satisfy adult needs
It’s impossible for a gay couple to deny a child their father or mother unless you are talking about kidnapping. If you’re aware of any gay couples who have kidnapped a kid I suggest alerting the police.
February 3rd, 2013 | 7:22 am
Boo, you ask how a heterosexual couple and a same-sex couple are the same when raising a child. Your answer was to focus on a set of behaviors only, those that constitute the role of parent. It is superficial thinking like this that has led to the false claim that those with SSA have a “right” to be in that role.
I have two responses, both of which could benefit from an entire article unto itself. First, roles alone do not define who a man and woman are to each other. They each bring, besides a role, all that constitutes masculinity and femininity. Both bring quite different qualities and abilities to the parenting relationship and research bears this out. Focusing exclusively on behaviors of child-rearing (without describing those behaviors and how they differ for men and women) is obscurantism.
Second, there are no rights without corresponding obligations. So, when the SSA advocates cry “rights,” we must answer back that the child-rearing right carries with it the obligation to give the child his and her best chance to thrive. Research is clear on this: Children develop best with one father and one mother in a stable relationship. The “right” to SSA “marriage” and child-rearing takes away this obligation (giving them the best opportunity to thrive) toward children and so it is the children who suffer.
February 3rd, 2013 | 8:30 am
Re: comment by Boo:
My comment referred to the essence and sexual complimentarity (not sameness) of the couple, not the obvious fact that they are engaged in the practice.
February 3rd, 2013 | 11:51 am
I’m not sure. I get the argument why, but I’d be worried that people would treat me with kid gloves all the time, when all I’d want to do is just be seen as normal. Yeah, orientation is an issue, but it isn’t your entire life.
I guess it would be similar to always being called or introducing myself as Dave the single Christian. after a bit I’d be tired as always being treated as that. I’m single, and always dealing with celibacy issues (as any single man does) but it’s not all that I am and bringing it up all the time can hurt as much as help.
February 3rd, 2013 | 12:20 pm
Re: Comment by Boo:
A post preceding this one at this site is accompanied by a photograph of two women and a baby. The child’s father donated his sperm and made the conception possible. The child will be raised by two women.
It is my contention that the child’s human right to know his father and to experience his care and protection have been deliberately denied. This is abusive.
February 3rd, 2013 | 1:05 pm
“Research is clear on this: Children develop best with one father and one mother in a stable relationship.”
Actually Dr. Fitzgibbons, your research is as clear as mud. I do understand research shows single parenthood (chiefly single motherhood) doesn’t yield optimal outcomes. And, I’m open minded on the recent singular study by Dr. Regnerus that shows same sex parenting is not as optimal. But the only reason why there was a desperate push to get such as a study on the books is because there are a lot others published in respected peer reviewed journals that show same sex parents are just as good. It’s going to take a lot more time for social science to get all sorted out (if it ever does).
February 3rd, 2013 | 1:48 pm
It is my contention that the child’s human right to know his father and to experience his care and protection have been deliberately denied. This is abusive.
A Reader,
The problem with your contention is that the alternative you favor is the nonexistence of the child. Apparently you believe it is better for a child not to be brought into the world at all if it is not going to be raised by its biological mother and/or father. You might do a survey of all the children who have been born by ART and never known their father or mother whether they feel it would have been better if they had never been conceived.
Note, by the way, that 41 percent of children in the United States are born out of wedlock. Some may know their biological father, but many will not. Also, here is some information about single-parent families:
Clearly, we do not make public policy in the United States based on the idea the every child has a right to be raised by his biological mother and father.
February 3rd, 2013 | 1:53 pm
Those with deep seated homosexuality are not permitted to study for the priesthood because they embrace the homosexual agenda for the culture.
A’s Letters,
You are seriously distorting the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. The Catechism says:
The Catholic Church does not maintain, as you do, that to say a person has deep-seated homosexual tendencies means that he or she “embrace[s] the homosexual agenda for the culture.” Nor does the Church maintain (as you seem to imply) that a person who cannot change his or her orientation is somehow a supporter of the “homosexual agenda.” The Catholic Church does not call on homosexual persons to become heterosexual persons. It calls on them to live a life of chastity. Persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are accepted as blameless for their orientation. To maintain anything else is to deny what the Church plainly teaches.
February 3rd, 2013 | 2:36 pm
No, Jon, you are wrong. There is not one—not one—credible study on the planet showing that same-sex parenting leads to the same outcomes for children as parenting by one father and one mother in a stable relationship.
I refer you to Loren Marks’ definitive literature review on this politically-loaded and weak area of research.(1.)
SSA advocates have tried to sell social scientific organizations and the general public a lot of fool’s gold. It is advantageous that science at least over time has the tendency to correct error. Your statement is in error.
Also, Social science studies have documented the vital role of the mother in child development. Numerous studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger, fear, sickness, or some other distress. Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood.(2.)
A secure attachment to a mother in childhood is essential in the development of trust. According to the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson development of basic trust is the first state psychosocial development occurring, or failing, during the first two years of life. Success results in feelings of security, trust, and optimism, while failure leads towards an orientation of insecurity and mistrust. Children need to protected from the cruel social experiment of deliberately depriving them of a mother or a father.
1. Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect…
February 3rd, 2013 | 2:45 pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
Even if what is meant here is true, it is not accurately stated. Comparing any two children, one raised in a stable home by a mother and father, and the other not, there is no guarantee at all that the child raised by a mother and father will have fared better than the child who was not. Studies of groups of children raised in intact homes by heterosexual married couples compared to groups of children who were not may only show statistical advantages for the former groups over the latter.
Also, even Mark Regnerus acknowledges that his study did not compare children raised in stable homes by opposite-sex married parents to children raised in stable homes by same-sex married parents. So there are no large-scale, definitive studies comparing children in these two groups.
Even if some future research should reliably demonstrate that, statistically, children with opposite-sex parents fare better than children with same-sex parents, we do not use this kind of knowledge to make public policy as to who may and may not marry and have children. For example, children of college-educated parents, or children of parents of higher socioeconomic status tend to do better, statistically, than children of parents without college degrees or of lower economic status. We would not dream of barring non-college-educated parents or poor parents from marrying and having children.
February 3rd, 2013 | 3:15 pm
David,
Please read the Congregation for Catholic Education’s, Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders (2005). This documents states, “If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, as well as his confessor, have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding to ordination.”
Had the Church properly screened candidates for the priesthood much shame, sorrow and abuse of adolescent males, the primary victims in the crisis, could have been prevented. The Boy Scouts should not make the same mistake.
February 3rd, 2013 | 3:55 pm
Re: Comment by David Nickol
Once a child is born, all efforts must be made to insure a secure, positive, healthy life for the child. But this cannot justify or make right a deliberate process which, rather than dealing with a crisis situation, creates one, deliberately and methodically, so to speak, creating a child in such a way that he or she will never know his or her father or mother, much less the grandparents and extended family.
Do you justify this?
February 3rd, 2013 | 3:59 pm
“If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, as well as his confessor, have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding to ordination.”
A’s Letters,
I am familiar with the document you cite, and the passage you quote in no way implies that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies necessarily “embrace the homosexual agenda.” You said, “Those with deep seated homosexuality are not permitted to study for the priesthood because they embrace the homosexual agenda for the culture.” That is not true. It is true that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are more or less forbidden from entering the priesthood, but it is not true that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot reject the “homosexual agenda,” fully embrace the teachings of the Church against homosexual behavior, and live chastely in good standing in the Catholic Church and receive the sacraments.
Having “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is not a matter of choice or of rejection of what the Church teaches. It is just a psychological/biological fact for which the Catholic Church does not hold a person morally responsible.
February 3rd, 2013 | 4:06 pm
David Nickol:
“40 per cent of all children are born out of wedlock”.
Are you proposing that this statistic proves anything good? That we should just accept this new state of affairs? No problem – the state will provide?
… or are we discussing how the best good of children might be served if the seriousness of parenthood – which requires a mother and a father – could be recovered. Do you disagree that children understand abandonment and exploitation – that they have the intelligence to understand what they have been denied?
Such insouciance in the face of the evidence we already have – the distress of children of divorce, the loneliness and vulnerability of mothers raising children alone, the clear evidence that both boys and girls benefit from the commitment to their well-being by their fathers and mothers!
I cannot understand the source of your confidence.
P
February 3rd, 2013 | 4:57 pm
. . . creating a child in such a way that he or she will never know his or her father or mother, much less the grandparents and extended family.
A Reader,
I have very mixed feelings about ART, including in vitro fertilization using the husband’s sperm and the wife’s egg, with no third-party involved. But . . .
First, there is no more likelihood that a same-sex-married couple will have children using ART than an infertile heterosexual married couple, or, indeed, a single woman who wants to have children. I see no reason to oppose same-sex marriage because one is opposed to ART, especially if one does not oppose the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples on the same grounds or ART for single women. Why not just oppose ART itself?
Second, I see no move on the part of cultural conservatives to regulate ART for heterosexuals. There was an article in The New York Times about an anonymous sperm donor with at least 150 offspring. How can that be good? I see no significant attempt to make an issue out of it. Why, when “Octomom” gave birth to octuplets, was there no serious move in the United States to regulate the fertility industry? Also, why do those opposed to embryonic stem-cell research not try to regulate the source of embryos—IVF clinics?
Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe most people who claim to oppose same-sex marriage because they oppose ART really care very much about ART. They just oppose same-sex marriage. There are many ways to oppose ART, but it seems only to be an issue when gay people are involved.
February 3rd, 2013 | 5:50 pm
“Clearly we do not make public policy in the United States based on the idea that every child has a right to be raised by his biological mother and father.”
This argument could have been used before the Civil War, as in, “clearly we do not make public policy in the United States based on the idea that black people have a right to be free”. “We” were of course egregiously, unjustly, inhumanely wrong.
Just for the record, the “We” of which you speak does not include me. In the name of the human rights of real, living persons (not objects of sociological studies or statistics) who are children and who are dependent upon the protection and honor of adults, I protest with every ounce of strength I possess.
February 3rd, 2013 | 7:13 pm
If a man wishes to note himself as one thing or another, what place do we have in exactly how it is done? He has been questioned, and he has now clarified. I worry that being too caught up in the squabbles of -exactly- what something means in a lingual sense takes away from the simplicity of the Christian spirit. In short, have peace among you and in you. Such a small issue shouldn’t gain so much stir over the basic love and acceptance we have been given.
February 3rd, 2013 | 10:11 pm
[David Nickol]“Clearly we do not make public policy in the United States based on the idea that every child has a right to be raised by his biological mother and father.”
[A Reader] This argument could have been used . . . .
It was not an argument. It was a statement of fact.
February 3rd, 2013 | 10:46 pm
Asking homosexual Catholics to metaphorically castrate themselves and doom themselves to a life without human love or sex is fundamentally no kinder than the evangelical take on homosexuality. That the church uses more neutral words to express itself does not undo the fact that the expectation is cruel.
February 3rd, 2013 | 11:26 pm
“Gay” is a socio-political identity, not a scientific label.
It is not one and the same as same-sex sexual behavior (impulsive and intermittent — or intentionally embedded in a lifestyle), same-sex sexual attraction (transitory or deep-seated tendencies), nor is it an inborn personality trait.
It is a group identity that is constructed as a coping mechanism — in terms of the group and in terms of those enfolded within the group.
Gay activists use gay and Christian in conjuction to undermine the Christian essentials of moral account of human sexuality. This is a political manipulation that has succeded on the basis of disparaging the Chistian identity for the sake of promoting the Gay identity. That project opposes the authentic Christian identity as a big hindrace to coping with the stuff from which gay identity is constructed. It is premised on the incompatability of gay and Christian.
To flip this around is an ambitious project that might use the socio-political weight of an anti-Christian group identity against itself. I do not mean in crass political terms but as the means to coping with the hindrances thrown up against the authentic Christian teachings on the moral reality of human sexuality.
February 4th, 2013 | 6:38 am
Again, I’ll note aside from kidnap it is impossible for a SSM couple to ever deny a child a mother and father.
Gay as “socio-political identity, not a scientific label”….not sure what this means unless you’re trying to say there’s no scientific test for ‘gayness’ in the sense there is for, say, diabeties. In evaluating such a claim I would say that heterosexual does in fact describe a real sexual orientation. No it’s not the same as a just asking who people are have had sex with. Clearly there are many heterosexuals who are not at any given moment having sex with people of the opposite gender. If you admit that as an orientation logic does demand homosexual, bisexual and asexual likewise be admitted.
February 4th, 2013 | 6:57 am
David Nickol: “It was not an argument. It was a statement of fact.”
It has previously been the case (and is still in most cases) that people of good will, when presented with facts that expose an injustice, will present reasons in support of changing and/or forbidding the practice.
Although I will probably attempt other comments, I acknowledge with great sadness and growing resignation that discussions based on different first principles cannot proceed to a common conclusion.
February 4th, 2013 | 7:58 am
No, Jon, you are wrong. There is not one—not one—credible study on the planet showing that same-sex parenting leads to the same outcomes for children as parenting by one father and one mother in a stable relationship.
I refer you to Loren Marks’ definitive literature review on this politically-loaded and weak area of research.(1)
SSA advocates have tried to sell social scientific organizations and the general public a lot of fool’s gold. It is advantageous that science at least over time has the tendency to correct error. Your statement is in error.
1.Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
February 4th, 2013 | 8:51 am
David,
The Church responded to the crisis of the homosexual abuse of adolescent males, in part, by the Vatican document, Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders (2005). The instruction states, “If a candidate (for priesthood) practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.”
“Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.” Obviously, such conflicts cannot be resolved without spiritual direction and, in some young men, consultation with mental health professionals.
The Church is acting to protect youth and the Church from further shame and sorrow from those who embrace the homosexual agenda for the culture. The Boy Scouts should learn from the Church and continue to protect youth from attempts to force the them to allow scout leaders who embrace a homosexual identity.
February 4th, 2013 | 9:23 am
A Reader,
I am not quite sure what you are saying, but please point out to me a law or policy in the United States that is based on the principle that every child has a right to be raised by his biological mother and father? Are there any restrictions at all on artificial insemination? On in vitro fertilization involving a donor? On divorce involving parents with children? Are there any laws requiring that the 41% of children born out of wedlock must be raised by their biological fathers? (Women are very lucky if they get child support.) Are their laws that those who conceive children must bring them to term, give birth to them, and raise them? As Michael PS points out, if a married woman conceives by someone other than her husband, the baby is considered to be the husband’s, not the biological father’s. No doubt there are excellent reasons for that, but it violates the principle that children must be raised by their biological parents. If it is a principle of American law or social policy that every child has a right to be raised by its biological mother and father, clearly it is the first principle to be sacrificed if there are conflicting principles.
What do you offer as a reasonable plan to implement the principle that every child has a right to be raised by its biological mother and father? Ban all forms of third-party reproduction? Do you think there would be political support for that? Make it extremely difficult for married people with children to divorce? What are the odds for achieving that? A return to shotgun weddings? Legal requirements for men to marry the women they impregnate? Here’s a startling headline: Tennessee’s deadbeat dads: The three men who have fathered 78…
February 4th, 2013 | 9:26 am
@David, the church is not alone in having a pedophile problem. It is also endemic among Christian groups with married ministers. Barring gays from the priesthood won’t lower abuse rates, as pedophilia is as common among straight men as it is among gay men.
If the church wants to protect the youth, it needs to stop protecting the pedophiles. If you are known to have protected such people for decades, then you have created a culture where pedophilia is acceptable, and you are going to have a problem with child abuse. Sadly, such a cultures, once they develop, are very difficult to undo, and scapegoating gays is no solution.
February 4th, 2013 | 10:08 am
Thank you, David, for finally seeing the light. You are right. Society, based on tradition, would not think of “barring non-college-educated parents or poor parents from marrying and having children.” Why? Because tradition and common sense tell us so. Now, David, what does tradition, common sense and psychological science tell us about how children are reared and reared best?
February 4th, 2013 | 10:55 am
Do you suggest that those of us who support the natural family as a respected and supported-in-law cultural norm simply accept defeat?
Is the history of those who recognize a harm devoid of those who speak out against that harm? Do we respect those who do – even those who failed utterly and completely to prevent the harm?
My position is that a person of good will must speak out in order to preserve personal integrity. In that case this means defending the self-evident fact that each child has a mother and a father; that he or she is entitled to that mother and father and to knowledge of family history as a matter of simple justice.
Any possibility of regaining this understanding will be long and arduous. We might look at the process through which our current dilemma acquired strength. But that process required centuries to reach its present eminence. It is not unreasonable to think that its correction will take as long or longer.
We can only “cast our bread upon the waters”. The rest is up to God.
February 4th, 2013 | 11:57 am
Now, David, what does tradition, common sense and psychological science tell us about how children are reared and reared best?
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
In extended families, particularly with a grandmother present.
February 4th, 2013 | 12:13 pm
Do you suggest that those of us who support the natural family as a respected and supported-in-law cultural norm simply accept defeat?
A Reader,
No, I expect you and your movements (for example, the pro-life movement, and the anti-same-sex-marriage movement) to be consistent and to put some energy into opposing what you claim to oppose rather than avoiding less-popular battles or more difficult battles. If people are going to oppose same-sex marriage because they oppose assisted-reproductive technology, they should oppose assisted-reproductive technology for everyone. I expect people who claim to believe that every child should be raised by its biological mother and father to attempt to tighten divorce laws for married people with children, to attempt to ban (or at least regulate) artificial insemination, to put in a major effort against the 41% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and to do more for women with unwanted or unplanned pregnancies than to make it difficult for them to get abortions. In looking at social and religious conservatives nowadays, one would think the only two issues are same-sex marriage and abortion.
When I say “I expect you,” I do not mean you personally. For all I know, you do everything I have named and more.
February 4th, 2013 | 2:04 pm
I am in complete agreement with your post.
“… they should oppose assisted-reproductive technology for everyone …”.
I have made one exception in my thinking – that of those Orthodox Jewish Rabbis who teach that uniting the life-transmitting material of a husband and a wife to artificially conceive one embryo (the couple’s son or daughter), the embryo to be implanted in the mother’s womb and at birth taken into the couple’s home, as any child of their union would be.
This position can only be rejected with reference to the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, to which I will adhere but cannot justify attempting to require of adherents to Orthodox Judaism.
February 4th, 2013 | 7:38 pm
David, like many of those who refer to themselves as gay Christians, would like to try to deny the vital role of a mother in the life of a child through their efforts to redefine marriage.
Social science studies have documented the vital role of the mother in child development especially in the development of basic trust. Numerous studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger, fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more soothing. Mothers are more responsive to the distinctive cries of infants; they are better able than fathers, for instance, to distinguish between a cry of hunger and a cry of pain from their baby. They are also better than fathers at detecting the emotions of their children by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures.
Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood.[i] Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively as extensively as, causes even more severe damage to a child because the role of the mother is so crucial in establishing the child’s ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships. All cultures of the world recognize the essential role of the mother in child development.
[i] Kobak, R. (1999). “The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships: Implications for theory, research, and clinical intervention”. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver. (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 21-43). New York: The Guilford Press.
February 4th, 2013 | 7:40 pm
Correction -
Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood.[i] Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively fatherlessness, as causes even more severe damage to a child because the role of the mother is so crucial in establishing the child’s ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships. All cultures of the world recognize the essential role of the mother in child development.
February 5th, 2013 | 12:53 am
David, like many of those who refer to themselves as gay Christians . . .
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
I do not refer to myself as a gay Christian. Wesley Hill refers to himself as a gay (celibate) Christian for reasons he cites in his post, and I support and admire him for doing so. But I don’t believe I have said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as accepting that designation for myself.
Wesley Hill describes himself and three others as gay Christians—Joshua Gonnerman, Melinda Selmys, and Eve Tushnet. None of them support the redefinition of marriage.
Having taken a brief look at the document you cite, it seems clear to me that it is not making the point that it is damaging to have men rather than women as caregivers for children. What is important is continuity. The caregiver must not absent herself (or himself) for significant periods of time and break the continuity of the relationship. This is clear even from the title—The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships. There may be other literature that gives evidence for the point you are trying to make, but I think you have given the false impression that this document says caregivers must be women or children will be damaged emotionally.
February 5th, 2013 | 9:01 am
Reply to David Nickol:
Re: Your most recent post:
In writing about the Sabbath observance, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks teaches that the Sabbath “is one of those phenomena – incomprehensible from the outside – that you have to live in order to understand.”
So also, I do believe, is the essence of motherhood and fatherhood. No document, no study, no statistics can penetrate to the heart of this matter – which must be lived to be understood; your lawyerly, erudite arguments take us no closer to the lived reality.
February 5th, 2013 | 11:08 am
. . . your lawyerly, erudite arguments take us no closer to the lived reality.
A Reader,
Well, thanks . . . sort of.
But please understand I am not knocking motherhood. I am wholeheartedly in favor of it. If you will notice, I did not say R. Rick Fitzgibbons was wrong about motherhood. I said the document he cited didn’t support the case he was making.
Here’s what I would say about motherhood vs. fatherhood. Let’s set same-sex marriage aside. Suppose a married couple has young children, and the mother dies. Must the father remarry immediately to make sure his children have a mother? Should he worry that if he raises the children himself, they will be psychologically damaged? If a father loses his job and his wife has an excellent job, should the father not be a stay-at-home dad?
There are things I am sure social science studies can’t tell us, but it seems to me that people who maintain that social science studies don’t capture this or that still quote them when they think the studies support their cases.
We simply do not make decisions in our personal lives based on the findings of social science studies. Any couple entering into, say, an interracial marriage who checked studies to see if their marriage was likely to succeed would be wacky. So I am not prepared to say a man shouldn’t ever be the caregiver for a baby. It may very well be that the ideal is a woman as the primary caregiver for children in conjunction with a man to which she is married. But we can’t insist on the ideal at the expense of everything else.
February 5th, 2013 | 3:49 pm
Reply to David Nickol:
This discussion has traveled far from the subject of the original post.
My participation is motivated by my concern for the human rights of children – to advocate for their right to a stable home with their natural parents whenever that is possible. That is not always possible, as you say, and then it is simply necessary that other arrangements must be made.
I respect adults human rights to privacy and strongly support their right to freedom from interference in their private affairs.
This series of comments represents the participants combined efforts to carry on a respectful, civil discussion. That in itself is a good thing.
February 6th, 2013 | 8:43 am
It seems to me, having read Hill’s book and heard him speak several times, that he uses the term ‘gay Christian’ in an effort to build bridges. In other words, he does go around telling everybody he is a ‘gay Christian,’ but rather that he is a ‘Christian.’ However, when speaking on the topic of homosexuality, in an effort to make people aware that it is, in fact, possible to have same-sex attraction and be a faithful Christian, he identifies himself as ‘gay’ and a ‘Christian.’ In an effort to help hopeless people find hope in Christ in the midst of a seemingly unending struggle, I have many people say similarly things like. ‘I struggle with X temptation, and I am a Christian.’ I have no doubt that Hill knows his identity firmly rests first in Christ. By reading his book, He obviously know being gay is a part of this life that will be resolved in the next. It is so important to understand the context of his identifying as a ‘gay Christian.’
February 6th, 2013 | 1:05 pm
I struggle with Same sex attraction, but I am not celibate. I am married, and I have sex with my wife.
I would never label myself “gay”. I also doubt I will be “healed” of this struggle. Satan has found a vulnerability in me, and will likely tempt me in the same way my whole life… But God will enable me to not give in. That said, I am open to God changing my struggles and affections if He pleases.
Calling myself a “gay Christian” is like making a point of calling myself a “sinful Christian”. Just plain dumb and senseless. My struggles with SSA don’t make me “gay”. Struggling with SSA is not something to create an identity around. It sucks. It is a hard thorn. It is also not natural, and it is not the way God designed me to work. It is also an abomination to God when I sin sexually. I hardly want to make my sexual sin part of my identity.
The word “gay” quite naturally brings to mind images of sinful behavior. No thanks. I’ll stick with just calling myself a Christian.
February 6th, 2013 | 1:34 pm
Pope Benedict’s wisdom may help in understanding the vital complimentary of a husband and a wife that is essential for the healthy development of a child.
Pope Benedict has described the “male genius” and the “female genius” in The Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church. He wrote in regard to the “male genius” that, “Greater distance from process of gestation and birth enables him to act more calmly on behalf of life; he acts to protect life and guarantee its future; he is a father in a physical and spiritual sense and he is called to be strong, firm, reliable and trustworthy.”
In describing the “female genius,” he wrote, “She has a special capacity to show love, a delicate sensitivity to the needs of others, a special capacity for the other and understanding of inner conflicts in others.”
February 6th, 2013 | 2:41 pm
Austin,
If I had my way, gay would be reserved as a self-designation for those who are “same-sex attracted,” accept it, do not consider it an affliction, do not consider it shameful, and do not consider it sinful to act on it. So by that definition, not all “same-sex attracted” people would be gay. But I understand and respect Wesley Hill’s use of the word and his self-designation as a “celibate gay Christian.” I am almost finished with is book, and I recommend it highly to anyone who is interested in the issue of Christianity and homosexuality, although gay people (in my sense of the word) will disagree with Hill’s moral disapproval of homosexuality.
I think Wesley Hill is, in part, trying to reach out to gay people, and his self-labeling as gay is part of that effort. I think he also genuinely identifies with gay people on some level, though he disagrees with self-accepting gays on fundamental issues. And there is a good reason, at least some of the time, for considering gay to mean “same-sex attracted”—for example, in the case of so-called “ex-gays.” If someone who is gay goes through “reparative therapy” and claims to no longer be gay, it is a pretty silly claim if all that is meant is that he or she has gone from being self-accepting to rejecting his or her same-sex attraction. If we take self-acceptance as the difference between being gay and not gay, then someone can convert from being gay to ex-gay and back over and over and over. For me, claiming to be an ex-gay has to mean that you were once gay (otherwise how can you be ex), and it means no longer being same-sex attracted.
February 7th, 2013 | 6:58 am
Pope Benedict’s wisdom may help in understanding the vital complimentary of a husband and a wife that is essential for the healthy development of a child.
A’s Letters,
It strikes me that Pope Benedict is engaging in stereotyping. Take this, for example:
A great many women do not have this “female genius,” and a great many men do. The idea of the complementarity of the sexes is offensive except perhaps insofar as it refers to reproduction. It makes just about as much sense to say that men are taller than women, and so husbands and wives are complementary, because husbands can reach top shelves that wives can’t, but wives can squeeze into tight spaces that husbands can’t fit in.
February 8th, 2013 | 12:31 am
David, please define stereotyping.
February 8th, 2013 | 8:43 pm
Thanks, David
I agree. If the Pope was a psychologist, given a random sample of data from 100 people without knowing their gender – the obviousness of how impossible it would be to determine which ones had male or female genius becomes clear.
Male and female genius are cultural productions, they are unprovable – but they function as useful constructs for cooperating with other people that also share in those ideas. (And the Pope is trying to get 1 billion people to cooperate).
February 12th, 2013 | 5:03 am
Boonton, homosexual may be a quasi-scientific term for same-sex sexual attraction. Similarly, the term, heterosexual.
Gay is a different and non-scientific term — a slang term that is used for group identity as per my previous comment. You have used gay as a race-like notion, for instance, which reinforces my point.
Despite racist criteria, there is one human race. Genetic drift does not delimit subspecies of humankind; and likewise gay identity does not delimit a subspecies of humankind. Rascist criteria — skin shades, bumps on the skull, size of nose, shape of eyes, and on — don’t do the trick either. Gay identity politics likewise does not manage it.
The gay identity may seem benign, to some, but that is irrelevant. It is not a scientific term. It is sociological and political in meaning and in use and in origin. Rather than compare it with “heterosexual” compare it with “straight” as a non-scientific term and notion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact