God don't make no junk
After discussion upon discussion on homosexuality and the church over the past few years, well, I lost energy some time ago and started just sitting quietly through the discussions and voting with the inclusion crowd. But that doesn't seem good enough for here, to just read and enjoy all the discussion and not participate.
So here is how I look at this issue, and how I arrive at my strong belief that all people should be included equally in God's church. Meaning that anybody can be a member, a clergy member, a bishop, etc. That includes homosexuals. Oh! and women, too! (CofE just voted today to start working on a process of electing women bishops, I still don't know why that is so hard for them, they've had women priests longer than the US has.) But I digress (as usual).
To begin with, I don't have to judge, and that takes some of the pressure off. But I have had to vote in church elections, where the question isn't just "right or wrong?" but also "what's best for the church?" And that makes it too hard of a question to answer with just a yea or nay vote.
Now I come from a not-necessarily-literalist tradition, where my own ability to think and reason is viewed as equal to what's read in the Scripture, and equal to church tradition. The old three-legged stool analogy. So in studying the scripture on the subject, well, first I rejected the bits in Leviticus, because to my mind those were the parts of the law that Jesus' two simple commandments replaced. Then I figured if I asked the homosexual question in light of those two simple commandments, my answer pops up to love all and treat everybody right, even homosexuals. (even women!)
But when I got to the little bit in St. Paul's epistle, and that my last bit to do, too, well, three legged stool or not, you don't just chunk out pieces of scripture willy nilly. This required more thought. It didn't seem all that clear a commandment to me, I think there are probably hundreds of alternative translations available, too.
And then I held that up to the whole of the Gospels. The whole of the Gospels is love and inclusion, and that's for all four of them. I think for sure, if I place a homosexual in a crowd listening to Jesus preach, and, say, the man was ostracized for his sexual orientation and Jesus could see that as he was preaching, well, who do YOU think the most likely lunch guest of Jesus would be? That's what I thought, too. So I've got a slightly vague passage in one of Paul's letters vs. all of the four Gospels. So I go with inclusion, every time. Another stray thought may have influenced me a little bit, I used to have a coworker named Rich Giblin, and he always said "God don't make no junk." Assuming that homosexuals are born that way, well, God don't make no junk.
One thing I do want to share is this profile of Bishop Gene Robinson done by GQ at http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6948&pageNum=1. Bishop Robinson is one of the most godly men I think I've ever met. Also one of the most fun. For those who don't know, Robinson isn't just a homosexual, he is THE homosexual. The one that set off the divisions in the Anglican Church, although the split has been there since women's ordination more than 20 years ago. (That's my opinion anyway.)
I think we would have denied a powerful voice for God if we had pushed Gene Robinson away because of his sexual orientation.
- thejanet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
bravo Janet!
Janet,
All I would say to this is Bravo!
And I agree about Bishop Robinson. As an Episcopalian, I am troubled by schism, but I am more troubled by ignorance. If the Anglican Communion can't get on board with tolerance and inclusion than we may need to take a break for awhile.
take care,
steve
Why Are Some Homosexual ?
Hello Janet, as usual, I so enjoy what you write. You have that wonderful Texas drawl that comes through even on my screen.
It seems that most of us here are operating from the idea that sexual orientation is genetically pre-established at birth. I know there has been some study results published that seem to support that idea. So, I googled the question, "What causes homosexuality?"
There seem to be basically two schools of thought that are conflictive. One claims that it is a choice. The other is that it is genetic. After reading numerous articles this morning, I thought the following one seemed to succinctly summarize the opinions that are most grounded in scientific study and also embodies the most compassion. See what you think...
http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html
Educating the Public on
the Causes of Homosexuality
Presented by Julie C. Harren,
Palm Beach Atlantic University
Abstract
Julie C. Harren
Education on the causes of homosexuality is greatly needed, as few people really understand the developmental nature of same-sex attractions. Many people believe the theory that homosexuality is solely biological, while many others mistakenly believe it is a choice.
Typically, the biological explanation is preferred by homosexuals as this explanation helps to generate greater tolerance and also helps to build their case for minority status. Since education on the developmental contributors to homosexuality discredits the theory that it is completely inborn, some people are opposed to this type of education. Although education on the developmental contributors is not always viewed positively, it is very important that this information be shared. In this paper, less offensive, and therefore more effective ways of educating the public on the developmental contributors to homosexuality are described.
Educating the Public on the Origins of Homosexuality
In the recent presidential debates, a question came up regarding the nature of homosexuality. The moderator asked both candidates, "Do you think homosexuality is a choice?" President Bush answered that he didn't know, and Senator Kerry answered that he did not believe homosexuality is a choice, but that people are born that way. He referred to Vice President Cheney's daughter, saying that she, as a lesbian, is "being who she was, being who she was born as" (personal communication, October 14, 2004). I believe President Bush's and Senator Kerry's answers illustrate two aspects of a serious problem regarding the origins of homosexuality.
The first part of the problem is that there is a great deal of confusion regarding the causes of homosexuality. There is a clear need for education on this issue. Many people simply do not know what causes homosexual inclinations. Many others have believed the erroneous theory that homosexuality is solely biological. Most people have not been informed about the developmental contributors to homosexuality.
The second part of the problem evidenced in this presidential debate is illustrated in the moderator's question. He asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, "choice" being the popular alternative to the biological explanation for homosexuality. The problem indicated here is that there seems to be only one alternative explanation for those who realize that the biological explanation is incomplete. In much of society there seems to be only two popular explanations: either people are born gay, or else it is a choice. Unfortunately, however, as NARTH members are aware, neither of the two widely held beliefs provides a comprehensive explanation for the origins of homosexuality.
The research has never revealed that people are born gay. In fact, the research indicates that there are many factors, including possible biological and environmental factors, which contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996; Whitehead & Whitehead, 1999).
While homosexuality is not simply biologically based, neither are homosexual attractions a conscious choice. Attractions and desires are like feelings; they come from deep within us and are not a conscious choice on our part. Furthermore, the idea that same sex attractions are a choice is extremely offensive and hurtful to those who have these desires. Promoting the perspective that it is a choice often perpetuates judgmental attitudes towards homosexuals.
Although neither of the common explanations for homosexuality is accurate, the biological position is the one that is promoted by the gay community and secular society. This explanation, though incomplete and misleading, is extremely widespread. In the media and popular culture it seems to be assumed and implied that homosexuals are simply born that way. Flawed research studies are often cited as evidence for the biological basis of homosexuality.
There are a number of possible explanations for the popularity of the biological argument. Certainly if there are only two options, that it is biological or that it is a choice, it is clear that the biological option would be the preferred option, especially in the age of political correctness, in which tolerance is often the goal. Anything that promotes greater tolerance is more widely accepted. The biological explanation is used to do just that. It is assumed that if homosexuality is strictly physiological, society will be more compassionate and tolerant for homosexuals. In addition, the biological explanation is used as a platform for homosexuals seeking minority status. Many homosexuals will not entertain the idea that it is not biologically based, because any other explanation is often perceived as a threat to their cause. Thus, we are left with the promotion and widespread acceptance of information that, while considered politically correct, is incomplete and misleading.
Ironically, however, if people were taught that homosexuality is neither biological nor a choice, but a combination of both biological and environmental factors, the results of such education would include some of the advantages that homosexuals are seeking. When we educate on the environmental, developmental contributors to homosexuality, one of the outcomes is greater tolerance for homosexuals. Some of the results of education include: a deeper and more widespread societal understanding of their struggles, increased compassion for the hurts they have encountered, and decreased hostility. Hence, there are many advantages for society in general and for homosexuals in particular when expansive explanations are provided. Tolerance and respect are the result of education, even for those who do not approve or accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle. Therefore, it is not only important to educate on this issue, but appropriate and beneficial to do so. Education on the developmental contributors to homosexuality does not have to be viewed negatively by homosexuals. As I have educated on this important topic I have found that education produces positive results for all people.
Education on this issue includes information about environmental contributors to same-sex attractions. When I educate I begin by explaining the various developmental needs children have, needs for connection with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers. I explain that children are not simply born with a sense of their own gender but that their gender identity is formed through connections and interactions with others, primarily members of the same sex. I explain that children look first to their same-sex parent and then to same-sex peers to form their own identity: to understand how they measure up, how they fit in, what value they have as male or female, what it means to be male or female, etc. When children do not form healthy same-sex bonds and their needs for same-sex connection go unmet, these needs do not go away; they simply intensify or take on another form. Typically, near puberty, these unmet needs take on a sexual form, the emotional needs become sexualized (Satinover, 1996).
These developmental factors, combined with genetic temperament, which impacts perceptions, all go into the development of homosexuality. Other factors such as sexual abuse or traumatic experiences may also contribute to the formation of same-sex attractions. Since this information is largely unknown to the general public, it is very important that we begin to share it in order to generate a more widespread understanding of this issue.
I believe there are various ways of educating on this issue, some more effective than others. I believe that if we are going to be effective in our educational attempts we must do so in non-offensive ways, in ways that promote tolerance and are acceptable to all people, both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Although education on the origins of homosexuality has not always been well-received, I believe there is a way of doing so that can be non-offensive. As I have educated on this issue, I have found a way that seems to work well. I believe there are two keys to educating effectively: our motivation behind educating and our emphasis in educating.
Our motivations for what we do greatly impact the outcome of what we do. Our motivations are often evident in the delivery of the information we are sharing. The motivation that seems to yield the most acceptable results is love. I have a brother who is gay, whom I love dearly, and with whom I have a wonderful relationship. When I educate the public on the causes of homosexuality, it is my love for my brother that motivates me. My love for him produces in me a desire to raise awareness about the origins of homosexuality. My goal in educating is to decrease hostility towards homosexuals (especially within conservative faith-groups) and to increase compassion. With that as my goal, I share the information in a way that is not only palatable to heterosexuals, but also acceptable to my homosexual brother, his partner, and their homosexual friends.
On the other hand, if our motivation to speak on this topic is anger or outrage at homosexuals, I believe we lose some effectiveness. When anger motivates, the message we offer tends to contain a tone of hostility, which is not usually as palatable as a message given in love. When the information about homosexuality is presented in anger, the message often becomes lost in the delivery. An approach to education which conveys anger or intolerance will repel, rather than attract, listeners. I believe that education on this issue is absolutely imperative, but it must be done in a way in which people will listen, a way which draws people in rather than turns them away.
In addition to having motives that help rather than hinder, our emphasis, that is, what we choose to emphasize or highlight, also makes a big difference in regards to our effectiveness. I believe that we must highlight the positive contributions of education on society, positive implications for both heterosexual and homosexual members of society. Educating on this issue can have a positive impact on homosexuals in that education offers a more complete understanding than either of the two inaccurate explanations which are currently promoted. When we educate, we are most effective if we emphasize the benefits of sharing the information, that is, a complete understanding of the issue yields more positive results for everyone than either of the two popular misconceptions. For example, in contrast with the false idea that homosexuality is a choice, understanding the developmental nature of same sex attractions yields a much more compassionate response towards homosexuals. When people who believe it is a choice are educated on this issue, they gain understanding, have greater levels of compassion, and become less judgmental. Tolerance is the outcome when people who believe it is a choice learn that it is instead developmental. All people, including homosexuals, should be treated with respect and dignity even by those who may not approve of their lifestyle.
When I have educated on this issue to conservative faith groups, greater kindness to homosexuals is often the result. I continually receive feedback from seminar attendees regarding their new resolve to become more loving and kind to homosexuals. One person, who recently attended one of these seminars, doing so reluctantly, at his pastor's bidding, was so impacted that he stood up at the end of the seminar to share his newly gained insights. He said that he had a co-worker who was gay, and of whom he strongly disapproved. He explained that he regularly demonstrated his disapproval by treating his co-worker with contempt. However, upon attending our seminar, he expressed a new awareness of the need to simply love his co-worker and show kindness to him instead of contempt. When participants learn of the needs humans have for same sex connection and the results of those unmet needs, compassion is their response.
Understanding the developmental nature of homosexuality is not only a better alternative to believing it is a choice, but it is also better in some ways than believing it is solely biological. Believing homosexuality is biologically based is actually quite limiting to homosexuals, and therefore has negative implications. For homosexuals who are not happy in the gay lifestyle, the biological explanation gives no hope for any other option. I have met countless homosexuals who were told by psychotherapists that their condition was unchangeable, despite the fact that they were very miserable and were seeking change. Believing that it is biologically based implies that change is impossible. In a society that highly esteems freedom of choice, it seems ironic that we accept and promote a theory of homosexuality that leaves the homosexual with no other options. Taking away all hope for change seems restrictive at best, detrimental at worst. On the other hand, when we educate we promote the truth that people can seek change if they so desire.
The developmental understanding of homosexuality offers more options and increased hope. Of course, educating does not mean that homosexuals who are uninterested in changing should ever be coerced into trying to change against their will.
Information about the developmental contributors to homosexuality must be shared. Our society has been saturated with misinformation. Yet educating must be done in a way that is effective, a way that promotes kindness and compassion. Educating effectively requires right motives and a right approach. I believe if we lovingly share information that has positive implications for all people it will be much better received. The need for education is great, but the way it is done will determine how effectively that need is met. As we educate, it is imperative that we consider our motives and our emphasis and that we seek to promote a greater understanding in the most effective way possible.
References
LeVay, S. (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.
Satinover, J. (1996). The gay gene? The Journal of Human Sexuality.
Whitehead, N., & Whitehead, B. (1999). My genes made me do it. Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers.
re: biological explanation
I would be careful not to reduce the biological basis of homosexuality to simply a 'genetic' argument, while genes likely do play a role in an individual's sex/orientation/temperament etc., I beleive there is also evidence suggesting that hormone levels in the mother during pregnancy may play an important contributing role in determining sexual orientation, independent of genes. For those who do not view homosexuality as 'sin', I would also suggest care be taken in how much emphasis is placed on the biological basis of sexual orientation, since it ultimately can not be the determining factor in whether we label something as morally right or wrong. Consider the fact that all humans are endowed with an instinct for obtaining revenge against those who wrong us, thus suggesting a biological/evolutionary basis for a revenge instinct (McCullough, 2008). Does the fact that it has a biological origin make it morally acceptable to seek revenge? As a Christians I say 'no'. Simply using the biological/natural basis as the argument for acceptance of homosexuals is vulnerable to the argument that, 'Just because we have such an instinct/inclination does not make it right to act upon it, God calls us to control our urges/instincts/nature (in other words our sinful nature)."
I think we must view 'sin' as an oppositional attitude towards God in which we do not place the autonomy and well-being of other's on at least the same level as our own. I believe this is consistent with Jesus' statements about the law and prophets being wholly encompassed by the 'greatest 2 commandments', through our love of others, we demonstrate our love for God. Since anyone would be hard pressed to make the argument that homosexuality by it's nature infringes upon the rights, well-being, and autonomy of others. Based on this understanding of 'sin', I would argue that homosexuality is not 'sin' in any way, shape, or form whether it is biological in origin, personal choice, or some combination of the two. I would also argue that to intentionally limit the capacity and equality of loving and committed homosexual relationships between autonomous adults is 'sin' since it opposes Jesus' mandate that we treat others as we would want them to treat us (Matt. 7:12). I personally would not want anyone to dictate to me whom I could and could not love, nor would I want someone to intentionally limit my legal rights to commit to, be with, and share my life with that person. I don't think anyone who opposes gay marriage (let alone unwed homosexual relationships) would want such limations pressed on them either.
re: biological explanation -- and morality
Good points, Aaron. I'm glad someone pointed out that biological factors are more than genetic, as the gestational hormonal environment can play a large role. It may be well to point out also that, just as homosexual behavior is not the expression of only one sexual orientation or of one set of influences, homosexual orientation itself might not be a "unitary" phenomenon. There might be more than one constellation of genetic-gestational-environmental-psychosocial developmental factors that produce one or another form of homosexual orientation. "Essentialist" thinking can be very misleading.
Re: biological explanations and morality: while I think your second paragraph is great and right on target, I also think that a biological determinist argument for the moral acceptance of homosexuality isn't quite as weak as you think it is -- or at least it segues neatly into your major argument.
It's your comparison of biologically based homosexuality with a biological/evolutionary determinism for revenge that seems off target to me. That's because with revenge, we're all in the same boat. We're all enjoined to control ourselves. But with sexuality, celibacy is a choice for heterosexuals, who can also choose, as almost all do, to express their sexuality freely (but "responsibly", of course). But for homosexuals, in the argument that you cite, celibacy would be a requirement. Yet both sexual orientations are "natural", according to our understanding of biology and development. Why should one orientation get a license and the other be denied a license? If one sees our biological nature as sinful (which I don't), then there still seems to be no basis for a distinction in treatment between the sinfulness of heterosexuals' natures and the sinfulness of homosexuals' natures.
I think what supplements or completes the biological arguments is precisely the argument that you make about the 2 great commandments and the loving non-infringement of the rights, well-being, and autonomy of others.
Bill
Thanks
Good point Bill! I definitely agree with you that the biological explanation is useful for helping some people overcome their prejudices. I was simply trying to make the point that it need not stand alone, and that I see the greater argument being the 2 commandments and respect for others' autonomy. Thanks.
Aaron
Nice to hear from you, come around more often. Jim R.
Thanks
Jim, Thanks. I'll try to get on here more often and speak up when I have some thoughts.
Aaron.