On Homosexuality
Wednesday, 16 June, 2004
I thought I would post the notes from my talk on homosexuality from Sleepover. I'm a bit apprehensive about doing it because homosexuality is such an explosive and upsetting topic for some people but I have gotten the impression from those who comment that the readers of this blog are generally sensible people who might appreciate the collation and summary of such a large mass of information to help clarify their thinking on the subject.
A few things need to be said before I launch into it:
- I do not consider homosexulity to be a worse sin than any other sin. That would be unbiblical as the Bible clearly doesn't make that distinction (context of Leviticus 18 and 1 Corinthians 6 should bring that out). We're all sinners and we're all just as bad as each other. Please don't think I'm pointing the finger and standing in judgement as you read this talk;
- I do not hate homosexual people and I am not homophobic (though I suppose that some people's definition of “homophobic” would classify me as being so). I define “homophobia” as fear and hatred of homosexual people and I don't fear or hate them;
- In doing this talk I was seeking to clear up some of the confusion and dispel some of the myths that surround the issue of homosexuality. Therefore most of the material in this talk is facts, statistics, surveys, studies, etc.;
- The study we did on Sleepover was comprised of four different bits: a) An introduction by me; b) A systematic theology study on sex with a particular focus on homosexuality; c) A talk by me; and d) A discussion group on how to apply what we had learnt. Because we had already covered the Bible in (b), I don't refer to it much in the talk because the girls had already done the hard work of working out what it says about the issue.
Let us begin.
History
As we've seen from the Bible, homosexual activity is not a new thing; it's been around for centuries—back in Sodom and Gomorrah—back during the rule of the Judges—back in the time of the Canaanites who worshipped Asherah and practised cultic prostitution (male and female) for the purposes of ensuring the fertility of the harvest—and back when Paul penned these words from the first chapter of Romans:
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (1:26-27)
What was Paul talking about? What did Paul understand about homosexuality? What was it like in the ancient world? To answer these questions, I want to spend a bit of time looking at homosexuality in Greek—well, Athenian—society and Roman society.
The Greeks: Athens
“Pederasty” or “man-boy love” was something of an institution in Athenian society. It fulfilled the following functions:
- Population control so the cities wouldn't become overcrowded;
- Enhanced military prowess, the theory being that men who were lovers would fight more valiantly because they were fighting for each other;
- Education.
In Greece, boys and girls were segregated from a very young age. In Athens, sons of citizens between the ages of 12 and 17, called eronomoi, were courted by older men in their early to mid-twenties with the view to educating them for social, political and military life in later years.
When these boys entered their twenties, they ceased to be eronomoi and were expected to take on eronomoi of their own. They were expected to pass on the knowledge and education they had received. They would spend some years participating in military and civil service and then, finally, at around the age of 30, they were expected to marry and have children. They usually married daughters of citizens who were half their age—ie. 14 or 15.
Pederasty in ancient Greece was subject to strict rules:
- Boys under the age of 12 were off-limits because they were not considered to be old enough to choose their lovers;
- Boys who had been eronomoi in their adolescence should not continue to play the passive role when they reached adulthood as this was considered to be depraved;
- Pederastic relationships were only acceptable between adults and adolescents, not between adults and adults, or adolescents and adolescents.
- It was acceptable for a man to be married and also be having a relationship with a boy.
- It was not acceptable for a man to devote himself exclusively to boys and to shun women.
- It was not acceptable for citizens to have relationships with slaves because of the educational function of the pederastic institution.
- It was not acceptable for a male citizen to prostitute himself, however it was acceptable for male citizens to visit male prostitutes.
In Athenian society, women were considered inferior in every way and lesbian relationships were condemned. Intellectual exchange only took place between men. Therefore, many thought homosexual love was superior to heterosexual love because the former was concerned with aesthetics and communion, whereas the latter was only for procreation. Some academics in recent times have even claimed that the eventual abolition of pederasty was severely detrimental to the artistic and cultural life of ancient Greece.
The Romans
In contrast, pederasty in ancient Rome was not an accepted social or pedagogical institution. Homosexual practice occurred in slightly different contexts. Roman society revolved around male domination and the worship of the phallus. Citizen boys were raised to be virile, active and ever-dominating, never dominated. Sexual relations were governed by the following rules:
- Male citizens were expected to marry and continue the family line through children; they were considered abnormal if they did not do this, or if they devoted themselves exclusively to men.
- A master had absolute power over his own household and therefore it was acceptable for him to use anyone under his authority for sexual pleasure, male or female, slave or free. If someone stole his property or slept with his wife, he also had the right to inflict punishment through sexual subjugation and humiliation. Wives did not have the same freedoms. If a wife was caught in adultery, her husband had solid grounds for divorce and she would be totally disgraced. Lesbianism was also looked upon with severe disapproval.
- It was socially acceptable for a male citizen to visit prostitutes, male and female, as long as he did not visit them frequently and as long as he exercised financial self-control. Prostitutes were social outcasts (even if they were citizens who had entered prostitution due to impoverishment) because they played the passive role in their liaisons.
- It was unacceptable for a male citizen to have sexual relations with other citizens (boys or adults) as this would violate their masculine integrity.
- It was unacceptable for a male citizen to have sexual relations with another man's wife as this would pollute family bloodlines and threaten the patriarchal structure of society. If the couple were caught, the man would be stripped of his legal and civil rights and even banished. The woman would be divorced by her husband and not allowed to remarry.
- It was unacceptable for a male citizen to have sexual relations with slaves belonging to another man as they were not his property. (A slaves' offspring was considered to be property of the master and therefore a man could enhance his staff by begetting more workers through his own slaves).
But everything could be done under the veneer of respectability as long as a man was always seen to be in control—to be the active partner—penetrator, not penetrated—as long as he practised moderation by not indulging in luxuries, and as long as he kept everything in its place and did not flaunt his lovers.
Deviance in Rome, then, involved acting in a manner completely opposite to one's gender. If a man curled his hair, wore perfume and long clothes, and paid excessive amounts of attention to his appearance, he was branded effeminate and was ridiculed in public. If a man took to the stage to entertain others (like Nero did), he was regarded as being nothing better than a prostitute. If a man let his lovers manipulate him into excessive behaviour, his masculinity was questioned because of his lack of control. It was considered obscene for a man to want to be penetrated—not because of the nature of the act, but because men were supposed to be the penetrators—active, not passive. This was one of the reasons why the Romans regarded oral sex as being completely depraved.
Paul
The Greeks and the Romans did not think in terms of “heterosexual” and “homosexual” but in terms of penetrator and penetrated, acceptable and unacceptable. Bisexuality was considered normal; heterosexuality and homosexuality were not. In addition, the concept of restraining one's libido for the greater good was unheard of.
This is why Paul's words were so shocking to the ancient world. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
The Greek word for “homosexuality” in this passage is actually two words: malakoi and arsenokoitai.
- Malakoi has the basic meaning of “soft” or “effeminate”, referring to the passive partner—eg. male prostitutes
- Arsenokoitai is a word that has never been used before in ancient literature before Paul. It means, roughly, “homosexual offenders”—ie. the active partner. It is likely that Paul made it up to describe the sexual union of two males—compounding the words for “male” and “intercourse”, perhaps drawing on the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Note how, in doing this, he evokes God's law as being the universal standard for everyone.
Paul is basically saying that both penetrator and penetrated are unacceptable to God. He's saying it doesn't matter if you're a citizen, a slave or a prostitute—you're unacceptable to God. It doesn't matter if you're above a certain age or if you're married and you're continuing the family line through your kids, or you're only doing it with people who are your property, or you're doing it for the purposes of education, or you're maintaining a discreet front—you're unacceptable to God. All of it is unacceptable to God.
Not only does Paul make no distinction between active and passive partners, he also makes no distinction between male and female homosexuality. Consider Romans 1:26-27:
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Paul is saying that it doesn't matter if you're a man having sex with men, or a woman having sex with women: you're unacceptable to God. This was unheard-of in the ancient world! This was completely revolutionary to their way of thinking. Dennis Prager, in an article called “Judaism's Sexual Revolution”, writes,
Indeed, for all intents and purposes, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner).
(Dennis Prager, "Judaism's Sexual Revolution", Striving for Gender Identity: Homosexuals and Christian Counseling. A Workbook for the Church, ed. C.R. Vonholdt. (Reichelsheim: Reichenberg Fellowship, 1996, p. 17.
Population
Now, let us fast-forward to the present day and consider homosexuality in our society. The common figure that's often bandied around is that 10% of the population is homosexual. This figure comes from a study called Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male which was published in the late 1940s by Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin. It was an influential study because of its size, comprehensiveness and lack of embarrassment regarding sexual taboos. However its methodology was severely flawed. Kinsey himself was a homosexual and a masochist (in the sexual sense), with a taste for extreme forms of sexuality. There is little doubt he had an agenda.
Closer inspection of his methodology unearths some disturbing facts. His sample of American males, although large, was not really representative of the general population. 26% of Kinsey's subjects, for example, were sex offenders. 25% were in prison. Pimps, male prostitutes and frequenters of gay bars were over-represented. Therefore, Kinsey's contention that 10% of the population is predominately homosexual is a massive exaggeration. Most recent studies put the figure at around 1% for men and less than half that for women - and this is after 30 years of gay activism to make homosexuality a socially acceptable lifestyle.
Cause
What causes homosexual behaviour? There are many who claim that homosexuality is genetic or biological. Numerous studies have been done trying to prove this. However they have been characterised by exaggeration, shoddy methodology and rampant spin-doctoring fuelled by political agenda. If you want details, have a read of Trevor Hunter's essay, “Is homosexuality biologically determined?” in What Some of You Were as well as Michael Hill's article, “Recent tests prove …: Science and the homosexuality debate“ in The Briefing (#301 October 2003). Unfortunately I don't really have time to cover this area, interesting though it may be. We should just note that there is little evidence for a genetic or biological cause.
But it is easy to see why the gay lobby should want there to be one. If they can prove that it's inherent and unchangeable, then they can also say that it's something they can't help doing. Parliament should therefore draft laws which should account for this.
However, Andrew Lansdown, in his book, Blatant and Proud: Homosexuals on the Offensive, which I haven't read but which was quoted by Phillip Jensen in his talks on Love, Sex and Marriage—Andrew Lansdown points out that, during the 1960's, when the gay movement was just beginning, homosexuals were very insistent that homosexuality was a choice, not something inherent. It was only later when they were starting to get blamed for the AIDS epidemic that they turned around and began to say it was genetic, biological and something they couldn't help.
So what does cause it? Most of the evidence points to behavioural causes. For men, many of them were sexually abused at a young age by another male—usually a close relative. Many experienced emotional deprivation and detachment from their fathers. Many experienced rejection, external labelling and name-calling. Many grew up feeling “different” and were ostracised by other men for being so.
For women, some (but not all) were sexually abused by another male—whether as a child or an adult. Many women also suffered from physical or emotional abuse from their parents—especially their fathers. Some never really bonded with their mothers and felt detached from them. Some watched their mothers being abused by their fathers, which then led them be contemptuous for the feminine because being female implies weakness. Some really identified with their fathers and wanted to be accepted by them. They tried to gain this acceptance by exhibiting “male” behaviour.
Lifestyle
Now I want to take a brief look at the homosexual lifestyle.
Relationships
As we have already seen, there are many political groups lobbying for the legalisation of same-sex marriage, claiming that a denial of this right is discriminatory. What they fail to mention is that homosexual relationships are rarely long-term or monogamous.
In 1984, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, a psychologist and a psychiatrist who were themselves in a homosexual relationship, published The Male Couple, an in-depth study designed to evaluate the quality and stability of long-term homosexual relationships. They interviewed 156 male couples in relationships that had lasted from 1 to 37 years. Two-thirds of the respondents had entered into these relationships with the implicit or explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. The results show that, of the 156 couples, only 7 had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Of these 7 couples, none had been together for more than five years. McWhirter and Mattison write:
As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. (p. 256)
In other words, what is quite essential to the stability and intimacy of a heterosexual relationship is detrimental to a homosexual one.
Bell and Weinberg, in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, found that:
- 74% of male homosexuals reported having more than one hundred partners during their lifetime; 41% more than five hundred partners; 28% more than one thousand partners.
- 75% reported that more than half their partners were strangers, and 65% reported that they had had sex with more than half their partners only once. Another study has claimed that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.” (D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Haworth Press, New York, 1991, p. 14.)
Although promiscuity and sexual addiction is characteristic of male homosexual relationships, this is not the case with women. Female homosexual relationships are characterised by co-dependency, emotional intensity and relationship addiction. Sex is far more incidental. Because they have been hurt in the past, usually by a male, these women feel they need to be in control all the time to feel “safe”. As a result, lesbian relationships are often characterised by manipulation, jealousy and psychological/emotional/verbal abuse. One study reported that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.
Female homosexual relationships are also far from lifelong and faithful. Bell and Weinberg found that 60% of homosexual women reported fewer than ten partners lifetime, and only 2% reported more than one hundred partners. It has also been shown that few lesbian relationships last longer than three years.
In short, as Thomas Schmidt states in his book, Straight and Narrow?,
Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience—it is virtually the only experience. And even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of “long-term relationships” as those that last at least four years, under 8 percent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity. Tragically, lifelong faithfulness is almost nonexistent in the homosexual experience. (p. 108)
Health
In Chapter 6 of his book, Thomas Schmidt takes a look at the mental and physical health of the homosexual population. He used over 200 secular sources who are either neutral or affirming of homosexuality. The picture he paints is quite disturbing, exhibiting high instances of:
- substance abuse through alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and “poppers” (which enhance sexual performance);
- depression and therefore self-harm, suicide and/or attempted suicide;
- physical damage, for example, dysfunction of the anal sphincter muscle due to frequent and long-term anal intercourse, resulting in things like chronic incontinence, as well as diarrhea, cramps, hemorrhoids, prostate damage, ulcers and fissures which can lead to infection;
- viral infections such as condylomata, herpes, hepatitis B and hepatitis A;
- STDs such as amebiasis, giardiasis, gonorrhea, shigellosis, chlamydia, syphilis, and ectoparasites;
- HIV and AIDS.
Schmidt summarised his findings in the following illustration:
Suppose you were to move into a large house in San Francisco with a group of ten randomly selected homosexual men in their mid-thirties ... [T]he relational and physical health of the group would look like this:
Four of the ten are currently in relationships, but only one of those is faithful to his partner, and he will not be within a year. Four have never had a relationship that lasted more than a year, and only one has had a relationship that lasted more than three years. Six are having sex regularly with strangers, and the group averages almost two partners per person per month. Three of them occasionally take part in orgies. One is a sadomasochist. One prefers boys to men.
Three of the man are currently alcoholics, five have a history of alcohol abuse, and four have a history of drug abuse. Three currently smoke cigarettes, five regularly use at least one illegal drug, and three are multiple drug users. Four have a history of acute depression, three have seriously contemplated suicide, and two have attempted suicide. Eight have a history of sexually transmitted diseases, eight currently carry infectious pathogens, and three currently suffer from digestive or urinary ailments caused by these pathogens. At least three are HIV infected, and one has AIDS.
T. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow?, IVP, Leicester, 1995, p. 127.
Parenting
I wish to say something briefly now about homosexual parenting because it's an issue which seems quite prominent in the media these days. There have been many studies in recent years that claim to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. However, many of these studies are compromised by methodological flaws (inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, use of samples not representative of the general population, lack of control groups, few longitudinal studies) and are mostly driven by political agendas.
However, you don't need a study to show that homosexual parent is detrimental to children. Just look at the things which characterise the homosexual lifestyle: multiple partners, promiscuity, substance abuse, mental health problems, physical health problems, not to mention the danger of sexual abuse from homosexual men who have a tendency towards pedophilia.
Bradley Hayton writes,
Homosexuals ... model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good “marital” relationship.
(Bradley P. Hayton, “To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples”, The Pacific Policy Institute, Newport Beach, 1993, p. 9.)
Treatment
Contrary to what society and the media would have us believe, homosexuality can be treated. This usually involves professional therapy and can be long and painful. It is important to note, however, that therapy will not necessarily make someone heterosexual. But the effects of therapy can still be helpful. In a study of 860 individuals and 200 psychologists/therapists conducted by NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, those surveyed reported significant decreases following therapy in the frequency and intensity of homosexual thoughts, in the frequency of masturbation to homosexual pornography, and in the frequency of homosexual activity with a partner. There was also a significant decrease in the number of people who said they saw themselves as exclusively homosexual. 99% of those who participated in the study said they now believed treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable.
Current:
Bible: Isaiah (ESV) 28/09/2010
seen: Tropic Thunder 26/09/2010
seen: The Life of Mammals 24/09/2010
seen: What a Girl Wants 19/09/2010
seen: Jerry Maguire 19/09/2010
seen: The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 06/09/2010
seen: Tomorrow Never Dies 05/09/2010
seen: Nanny McPhee 28/08/2010
read: Mercury (Hope Larson) 27/08/2010
read: Spellcheckers Vol 1 (Jamie S Rich, Nicolas Hitori de, Joelle Jones) 16/08/2010
read: Solipsistic Pop Vol 2 (Solipsistic Pop) 16/08/2010
read: Chiggers (Hope Larson) 15/08/2010
seen: Josie and the Pussycats 14/08/2010
seen: Mr & Mrs Smith 14/08/2010
seen: Step Up 2 13/08/2010
Blinks:
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
Online magazine that publishes fairy tales that are not reworkings of old tales.
Journal that publishes fairy tale writing.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
Hrm…I guess my main critique of this talk would be you don’t point out the flaws of the studies that you use to back your point up with. Otherwise it’s very well researched (not something I say every day trust me).
I’ve read in a couple of articles that the Kinsey reports were faked. I didn’t know what on earth the article was talking about (and remember some vague reference to it being some sort of turning point in politics or something similar) but I do now…I was about 10 at the time.
We are all sinners equally under God but for practical purposes here on Earth, not all sins are equal. We must say that murder is worse than stealing a apple from a store, otherwise everyone would get the same punishment for a minor sin as compared to a major one.
So I would consider homosexulity to be a worse sin than other sins since not all sins are equal.
Philip: I understand what you’re saying; obviously, in God’s law, not all sins are treated in the same way. Stealing someone’s cow is treated differently to touching a dead body to killing a man. But is homosexuality worse than adultery, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, rape or fornication? I think not.
Reading all those statistics and things makes me sad for those in our community who are gay. It’s certainly not a “gay” lifestyle” is it?
Karen: I do like what you said in your article, but you cannot say “I do not consider homosexulity to be a worse sin than any other sin.”, then say “obviously, in God’s law, not all sins are treated in the same way…is homosexuality worse than adultery, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, rape or fornication? I think not”.
Sins are either equal or are not. One sin is either great than others, or else all sins are equal.
Which is it to be because you seem to be supporting both points of view. There is a third option. I guess you could be saying that in Gods law not all sins are treated equally, but however all sins are equal in their sinfulness. Is this your point of view?
But that then raises the question as to why one sin should be treated any different to another sin and implies that one sin must therefore be more sinful than another.
Philip:
All sins have the equal effect of distancing us from God. In this sense, all of them are equal.
All of them have the eventual consequence of death (if there is no mediation).
However some of them are less helpful for us while we’re alive. The bible tells us to flee from sexual immorality, whereas with some other sins the language used isn’t as strong. I think Paul explains that this is because sexual sins are sins against our bodies, which as christians are temples of God.
This makes it important that we are especially vigilant about some sins, perhaps - the ones Karen listed are for example all sexual sins, and equally bad for us…worse for our body and our spiritual ‘race’ or life in Christ than perhaps swearing may be. But both crass language God doesn’t want us to use and sexual sin both have the same effect on our relationship with God.
One thing I don’t understand is why heterosexuals use procreation as a reason against homosexuality, when we use birth control, so we can’t say we’re much better than them. What about husband/wife couples where one or both is infertile?
Yes its correct sins have different end effects in relation to God, this means that one sin must be more sinful in essance than another. This is why you cannot say “I do not consider homosexulity to be a worse sin than any other sin.”. I say that you cannot say this because homosexuality will bring you further from God than stealing a single grape from Wollies to snack on while you walk around the shop. Or, I suggest this is the case. Therefore homosexuality must be a worse sin than other sins.
>What about husband/wife couples where one or both is infertile?
Its not valid anymore, you can have a child regardless of being infertile or not. Adopt, artificial insemination, gene transfer to a doner egg (not a current method but will be). But I think the point is Gods intention for us rather than the individuals circumstance.
Hey, Philip, can you translate what you said into simple functional terms? Like, Playschool ideology here, people (just without the ‘Brenna has two mummies’ impact).
Despite advances in ‘modern technology’, even though a husband/wife couple may be infertile, doesn’t mean they can still have babies like through ICSF, IVF, TESA or whatever. The success rate is low and it’s an expensive procedure to undergo. Same with adoption etc. I’m sure you know these things already.
Despite this, that wasn’t my point. My point was more: husband and wife are being recreational and not procreational in their bed life, because they know they are infertile. How is this different to homosexual sex?
>My point was more: husband and wife are being recreational and not procreation in their bed life, because they know they are infertile. How is this different to homosexual sex?
Clearly a difference is that they are homosexual rather than male and female, but I’m sure Karen would have a better answer than me on this. Which I’d love to hear.
I think the point is that God’s view on sex is that sex isn’t for recreation, its for love and God intended man and wife to be together as one in a love that God had designed. Sex outside of this type of love is wrong as it created an emotional bond that God did not intend. I would say it has to do with Gods intention for us, to share in a male/female union. But wouldn’t you agree that sex outside of love is wrong? Also I personally belive that love of this type cannot be created between same sex couples.
I’m sure there’s a lot more to it than that, and I’m very cursory.
If you start saying that the above isn’t true and you say that homosexual relationships are ok you can lead down that reasoning to say that any sexual behaviour is ok as long as it doesn’t harm another person or animal. But that line of reasoning doesn’t work well with me because the consequences are bad and its a very void form of love.
Hi Karen. While appreciating your argument and your research, there are a couple of points I don’t believe to be correct…or valid…
As an historian I have to say Landsdown’s argument does not stand up to historical scrutiny. The liberation movements of the 1960s/1970s posited and imbricated two models of homosexual development: genetic and chosen. Homosexuality was oppressed by the medical, legal and religious establishments. Seen as a disease by the first, activists insisted that homosexuality was inherent, psychologically normal, and not a disease. This ‘genetic’ argument was used against the latter two establishments as well, but with the addition that one could choose a homosexual orientation. But the point they made about choice here was not you can choose to be gay even if you’re not - the point was you could choose to be gay despite social and legal proscriptions against being gay - ie. such proscriptions were a social construct, not ‘natural’, one those who were genetically gay could choose not to adhere to there own oppression. This perceived oppression was manifested within the movement as ‘internalised homophobia’, and recognising and coming to terms with the socially external causes of this internalised homophobia - and choosing not be ‘act straight’ - was the first step in ‘coming out’. This was where the choice lay, not in ‘choosing to be gay’.
And in fact the whole idea that sexuality was a choice started to emerge around the time of the AIDS crisis - ie. conversely to Landsdown’s argument. The idea of queer emerged in the alte 80s, while the crisis was still fresh. Queer advocated not that everyone could choose to be gay if they wanted. Rather it attempted to normalise a diversity/multiplicity of potential sexual orientations by suggesting that sexuality itself was socially constructed. This argument has its origins in Foucault’s poststructuralist project - where society’s create and quietly enforce particular matrices of social power, normalising some behaviour and demonising other behaviours. What to normalise and what to demonise comes down to a social choice, and queer tried to point to this, and so like the earlier activists, encourage those who wanted to choose to be gay to do so. The other foundation for queer lies in feminist critiques of a social order which privileged white, affluent, heterosexual men. Queer, like second wave feminism, tried to show that this privileging was socially constructed, and that one could actively resist its normalisation through choice. Both these streams of thought are brought together in Butler’s performativity model, which contrary to some misreadings is not saying that you can choose to be a woman or choose to be gay. Rather Butler points to the constructed nature of the normalised sex/gender matrix, highlighting its artifical nature, and contending for nonnormative performativity as a way to disrupt its constructed naturalness.
In summary, the idea of choice with regard to homosexuality always remains bound up with a degree of essentialism - ie. that being gay is somehow inherent, and that society has constructed this inherent possibility as an intolerable abberation.
I also have an issue with arguments against homosexuality which base, in part, there validity on the minority status of gays, or on any stereotyped lifestyle. I start with the issue of minority. While I agree that Kinsey’s study is inherently flawed, and that no study since has shown potential figures of 10%, this is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. (As an aside, some studies - even those in Schmidt’s book - demonstrate figures above the 1% mark. And we must bear in mind that these studies are carried out in the US where there are still many legal and social proscriptions against gays in various states. Figues from other countries - such as the Netherlands - are higher.) Whether the figure is 10%, 1%, or .001%, why does this make any different to the validity of the lifestyle? Do we demonise and deny Aborigines because they compose only 2.4% of the Australian population? No. Do we agree with systematic extermination of minority groups in Kosovo and Kurdish Iraq? No. If anything, minority groups should be protected (this is a primary function of our legal system) from the wishes of the majority. Minority numbers and status is not an argument for invalidity and moral wrongness. The two do no correlate.
Now, the lifestyle issue. First, this promiscuous image IS a stereotype. There are plenty of others studies indicating something quite different - more stable and monogamous relationships. Especially amongst lesbians, which ironically you seem to ignore, even though speaking to a girls’ group?? Something to think about? Faithfulness is an important AND DESIRABLE thing for many, many gay men and women - something to be aspired to. Why on earth is there a push for gay marriage unless there is a desire for monogamy amongst significant numbers of gay men and women - men and women wanting some legal and social recognition of their lifetime commitment? The continued promotion of the promiscuous stereotype harks back to the demonisation of the 1950s, when homosexuals were socially maligned as sexually promiscuous and predatorial. While I would acknowledge some are like this, so are some heterosexuals. In fact, I don’t think it’s at all surprising that some gay people are promiscuous and multi-partnered given the previous (and ongoing) proscription against their identities and behaviours. If a social group is denied access to the symbols and rites of monogamy - and indeed, the rites of general social acceptance as relational and coupled partnerships - what models do they have to follow? With massive ongoing social, legal and economic proscriptions (including refusal of even de facto status!) is it little wonder that many gay people can’t form lasting, monogamous relationships? It’s almost as if the wider society does not want gay people to monogamously coupled - it would make them too much like the rest of us, and we wouldn’t be able to demonise them. No, let’s keep insisting on the promiscuous stereotype as the norm, even though we won’t give them access to the rites of monogamy and social acceptance as monogamous couples. As you can see, this makes me a little mad. Whether I dis/agree with homosexuality, I can’t help feeling that wider social norms are setting up the so-called gay lifestyle for a fall. Or more precisely, as the naturalised other of heterosexual family relations. Because if gay people were monogamous and coupled, what would be the ‘other’ that the family can be defined against and normalised by? No, maintaining this stereotype is a device to help define what the family means.
Finally, it always strikes me as odd when Christians condemn other goups for the lifestyles they are portayed by, while Christians themselves acknowledge and advocate lifestyle change amonst themselves - ie. growing in Christ’s image. Lifestyle is not inherent! It can change. Just as some heterosexuals can be very, very promiscuous, some gay people can be very, very monogamous. The point here is that there is a big difference between what is and what ought to be, and you can’t condemn an identity by a stereotyped lifestyle which is presented as spuriously natural. As I said above, I don’t this is how it ‘is’, but even if it was, this is no basis for Christians to condemn homosexuality. What ‘is’ an what ‘ought to be’ - the ideal lifestyle we are all striving for - are totally different things!
Well, there’s my two cents…or a few more…sorry if I’ve offended, but I just think Christians need to move away from these arguments about choice, minority and lifestyle - they just promote stereotypes that aren’t there. If homosexuality is to be considered a sin, and argued as such, it needs to be done theologically, not sociologically.
Cheers
Andrew
Sorry, I just realised I posted the wrong e-mail address. Since I’ve written so much, and some of it may by controversial, you may wnat to respond!
I should say - which I didn’t before - that I don’t disagree with the theology of (homo)sexuality, but with the historial and sociological arguments.
Andrew: Thanks for your comments. I am a little confused by your final sentence: “If homosexuality is to be considered a sin, and argued as such, it needs to be done theologically, not sociologically.” Mainly because the point of my blog post wasn’t to show that homosexuality was a sin and it wasn’t to talk about homosexuality from the Bible. In the seminar I ran, we had already covered that material so there wasn’t much of a need to rehash it in my talk. I agree that you can’t argue that homosexuality is a sin from sociology but surely you can see that I wasn’t trying to do that ...?
Hi Karen. Thanks for your reply. True, you aren’t using the sociological data to argue homosexuality is a sin, but I think you are using it as evidence that it is morally reprehensible - which is pretty close? And I guess I took these ideas to task a bit because do find a lot of the sources used somewhat off the mark and therefore offensive - at least from my personal perspective. The vast majority of gay people I personally know (from uni, work, etc) are either in monogamous relationships or aspiring to be so. These are lifetime relationships. Only a couple are into sexual liberation, shall we say - a no greater percentage than the heterosexuals I know who are sexually ‘liberal’. So I don’t see these stereotypes. And I think it clouds the theological issues to present these images of being gay. Rather than winning gay people over, it offends - it is still, after all, whether they are celibate or not, part of their identities, so saying ‘this is what gay people are like’ - when many aren’t like that - is more likely to repulse than attract them. As a Christian I find it offensive on behalf of my gay friends. It damages their image of Christianity. It makes evangelism harder.
But on re-reading I did notice something else I have to mention that I missed the first time…the part on parenting! As a qualitative researcher myself I found your objections to previous studies on gay parenting to be quite odd - at least from my perspective. Longitudinal studies, representative sampling, lack of anoymity of research subjects, etc. These are quantitative techniques, and I’d suggest that assessing the QUALITY of gay parenting can only be done effectively by qualitative analysis, and that pravious studies HAVE taken the right path. Qualitative research emphasises the lived experience of participants, not numbers in boxes. Qualitative research shies way from anonymous and representive sampling precisely to get to those people who would otherwise not be represented, and give them a VOICE.
And can I say that line about gay men having a tendency towards pedophilia is another throwback to 50s Macarthy-ish stereotypes. In ancient Greece pedarasty was favoured, but in modern times gay men like men, not boys. If anything, maybe you should question Germaine Greer’s adoration of the ‘boy’ as an idol of straight female sexual fantasies (her latest offering - I can’t remember the title). Gay men are not inherently - do not have a tendency towards - pedophilia. Most pedophilia is practiced by straight men against both boys and girls. It is a completely different thing to homosexuality, and any association is highly offensive to all those gay people I know - especially gay parents. Again, personally, the gay parents I know are wonderful parents. They love their children with all their hearts. Their sexuality is part of their identity, but not part of thier physical behaviour towards their children! Why would a gay man be any more likely to sexually abuse their own child than a straight father? They wouldn’t. This growing obsession with men (gay and straight) as pedophiles is starting to have a detrimental affect on our society. I know many men who will no longer interact with other people’s children for fear that they will be considered pedophiles. Fewer and fewer men are entering childhood education - especially early childhood education - because of these reasons. Surely this isn’t good for our children? Please, you cannot make assertions like this when all the evidence - again maybe you don’t like this evidence - points against gay men as pedophiles.
In fact, I would suggest that gay parents may make better parents than straight parents in some ways. A lifetime of ostracism and psychological abuse (yes, at the hands of their own heterosexual parents who generally silence the gay identities of their children! Lots of qualitative evidence about this! Read almost any collection of coming out stories.) would make them weary of exposing their own children to any form of abuse, physical or psychological. In reaction to their own experience of childhood and adolescence, they would make sure their children’s experience is one of love and acceptance. Moreover, I would suggest that they would educate their children more widely about the diversity of society and the ills of society. I think the children of gay parents - like the children of strong christian parents - might be more well-rounded and thoughtful than other children. If anything, I think christian parenting and gay parenting have more in similarities than differences contra the rest of society.
Maybe part of this bias is from my own experience of growing up in a broken home with an abusive, alcoholic (straight) stepfather. And in the economically depressed area I grew up in, there were a lot of broken homes and bad (straight) parenting. But experience - tempered by some academic research - shapes our views of the world and our attitudes. I am horrified by the uncritical elevation of the heterosexual family unit as the idol of worship in Australian society today, while at the same time their are families in disarray. Heterosexual families do very well at self-destructing without any recourse to scapegoating gay people and gay families. While my views on gay people may seem very liberal, it is because from my background where any degree of difference from lower working class stereotypes (even an interest in reading and writing) engendered ostracism, I am so unwilling to generalise and demonise any other social group. I think creating an essentialised image of various non-christian groups is - dare I say it - un-christian. Now that doesn’t mean we should say it’s all OK. But we need to be sensitive to other people’s identities, and attacking someone’s gay identity which has been under assault and erasure for all his/her life is not going to attract them to Christ. I think we should forget these studies about homosexuality. There is so much variety in homosexual experience generally that we can’t simply portray negative images of gay identity. Because what does seem to be common to gay experience is a general familial and social disapproval, and any essnetialised stereotypes are seen to simply perpetuate this ‘closeting’ and silence. I think we should emphasise the message of salvation and reconciliation through Christ’s death and resurrection proffered by the gospel. We need to offer the love of God. This is not to say that homosexual behaviour is acceptable to God, but I think we need to be conscious that someone’s gay identity will stay with them even after conversion, even though they are celibate, and negative normalised images of gayness will not help integration into the christian community at all. Maybe we should empathise with those elements of gay identity that the church can do something to ameliorate. Things like social ostracism (God accepts you), the loss of home (the church is your new home - you are a brick in the church of Christ), the loss of family (the church is your new family, God is your loving Father). Do you see what I’m trying to get at here? I don’t think the way evangelicals have gone about evangelising gay people has worked well at all. I certainly don’t think Liberty and organisation like that have been helpful at all - just look at dropout rates! Instead of thinking of converting gay people FROM a gay lifestyle, I think we need to think of bringing them INTO a christian lifestyle by offering those things missing from their experiences, and recognising that their gay identities are real, and continue, as part of themselves, even after conversion, even if they no longer ‘act’ on them. I think, for right or wrong, gay sensiblity still affects the identity of individual christian for whom homosexual attraction is a reality. (You have a link to a tesimony - 24/4/04 - where the narrator discusses this in one of his comments). These need to be recognised. Part of all these commments is my musings on how to evangelise better - more sensitively - to gay people.
Hi Andrew,
I realise that a lot of my material was drawn from secondary sources and not primary studies and that I’m relying on people like Thomas Schmidt to tell me the truth about what they have read. I appreciate that your experiences do not match his findings but I am wondering how representative your experiences are of the general population. It is all very well for you to tell me that the majority of the homosexual people you know are in monogamous relationships/are good parents but that does not necessarily mean that this is the norm. I know you don’t put much stock into studies yet surely sociological studies have some value. Studies bring to light patterns and trends. And most of the studies I cited were not done with the aim of persecuting homosexuals but to bring to light patterns and trends. (How do you respond to the findings of The Male Couple btw?) I don’t see how you can call it stereotyping when other people have done the research and come to similar conclusions. Surely their findings become fact rather than myth?
There is a lot more I could say but I have run out of time.
BTW, I did not say that all homosexual men have a tendency towards pedophilia. But there are some who do—a very small percentage but a percentage nonetheless.
Hi Karen
Thanks for your response. I guess what I want to say in a nutshell is diversity. Stereotypes can’t present the diversity of experience, but experience can represent diversity. Yes, there are bad gay relationships, bad gay parents, etc…but there are also bad straight parents, and bad straight families. Stereotypes elide this diversity, and alienate individuals.
Now it’s not that I don’t put much stock into studies - I’m a researcher, so I do it all the time myself! Maybe this is my bias, but I don’t think studies - especially quantitative studies - transfer myth into fact. They are not fact - they are merely another representation - a representation from a quantitative perspective. I don’t put much value in quantitative research that attempts to show the qualitative value of something. Quatitative work is always about numbers. Minorities know there in the minority. It’s time to stop enumerating it, especially when it present ONE IMAGE as representative of the whole. What’s that called again - metynomy? Yes, these studies are metynomic, not representative, not factual - by that I don’t mean not factual at all, but not factual in that they claim to represent the whole while representing only part of it! Again, this is fine, as long as the author notes that what they’re saying is only part of the story. I don’t see these researchers doing that. There is much better reseach out there that gives the issue of homosexuality a more rounded perspective, presenting the good and the bad (and I’m not denying there is bad), and looking for reasons in historical, social and legal contexts.
Now I realise that my experience does come with my own biases - I acknowledged that - but I present my experience here (above) to try to get away from one view is it. I want to show there is diversity and not everyone can be tarnished with the same brush. How do I respond to WcWhirter and Mattison? I acknowledge that what they found is a trend for their American study group, and presented it as typical. They didn’t analyse social or historical reasons why. They didn’t analyse, for comparison if you want to be quantitative, any heterosexual couples to test their levels of monogamy. Would such a study even be considered ethical? I doubt it. And yet it’s perfectly ethical to analyse the intimate relationships of gay men. Strikes me as a double standard. What about the secret history of husbands with another woman on the side? I know plenty of them, and yet there are no studies (I know of) about such infidelity.
Once more McWhirter and Mattison, like all the other studies here, are quantitative. Psychological studies are HIGHLY quantitative, almost desperately trying to be a ‘real’ empirical science. All such studies are trying to define morals, ethics and values using a quantitative framework. This doesn’t gel. It doesn’t ask deep questions of history, experience and oppression. It augments minoritisation by presenting stereotypes as scientifically ‘proven’. It can’t get to the heart of what matters most to people - their identities, their voice, their place in the world. This is why I’m unhappy with such studies.
I guess in the end we can agree to disagree on all this. But please take it from a primary researcher - these studies are not that good. All I plea for is a recognition of diversity and an end to minoritising stereotypes. They are not helpful. I would even suggest they are unethical. If you want to know why it’s hard to maintain a gay relationship, Misters McWhirter and Mattison, go read some work on home and family by Gill Valentine, Lynda Johnston or Kath Weston. Even in homes which gay couples have set up for themselves they suffer abuse and oppression from family, visitors and neighbours. McWhirter and Mattison need to get beyond what ‘is’, think about what ‘ought to be’, and ask why what ‘is’ ‘is’!
Finally, I just plead that these studies are unhelpful for evangelism. Do we evangelise straight people by showing them their lifestyles are immoral, even though they often are? It’s all well and good to say homosexuality is no worse than fornication, but then leave it there! It is Christ that changes people, reconciliation with God. We don’t quote statistics on straight fornication to take the gospel to straight people, so why do it with gay people?
that’s all…