A few years ago I had an extended conversation about gay people with an evangelical man in his mid-50s. I thought that this conversation might be illuminating, in that this fellow is a decent fellow in many ways. He would make a nice neighbor, for instance. He works hard, pays his taxes, makes contributions to poor people, loves his children and abhors bigotry, at least when it involves blatant discrimination of African-Americans. On the other hand, he is deeply troubled with the “problem” of gays. For purposes of this post, I will refer to him as “Donald.”
Here’s how the conversation went:
Do gays choose to be gay? Donald is really perturbed that some people choose to engage in homosexual sex as a matter of sexual variety or perverted fun. On the other hand, he does acknowledge that there are numerous gay people who have not chosen to be gay. They were born or raised in such a way that they turned out “differently.” Donald admits that they had no choice. They have innocently found themselves attracted to members of the same sex. I asked Donald whether his God created them this way, and he shrugged.
Donald admits that many heterosexuals engage in sex that he considers degenerate or immoral. This would include oral sex, anal sex or S&M for example. Donald reluctantly admits that these people should nonetheless be allowed to marry. People who do not want to have children or who physically can’t have children should also be allowed to marry. According to Donald, the state government should grant marriage licenses even to those who are not truly in love with each other, although he doesn’t personally approve of this practice.
Gay people should fight their sexual urges, according to Donald. They should be celibate for their entire lives. Gay people who fall in love with other gay people should not ever express that love physically. Donald claims that human beings do not need to have sex. People can live “meaningful” lives without it, even if they feel strong urges to have sex.
I mentioned my belief: that sex is as essential as food for most people; sex is a central part of being a human being. Donald sees sex as something optional, such as eating a particular food (e.g. ice cream) or going to the beach. I see living together publicly as a bonded couple (with the option of raising a family together) as a fundamental human right. Donald would generally agree, except that gay people do not have this right. Why not? Because the Bible says it’s so.
Simply being gay is not something that will cause a person to go to hell, according to Donald. If a gay person actually has homosexual sex, however, this is a moral and degenerate act. Having homosexual sex is a serious sin which you will cause one to be sent to hell for eternal torture. God has required this. Why? It’s not for Donald to question his God.
Donald believes that having homosexual sex is “unnatural.” He bluntly stated that animals do not have homosexual sex. He was not interested in knowing about bonobos, who commonly engage in homosexual sex as a form of community bonding. He was not interested in knowing that many other species of animals engage in homosexual sex (450 species have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors). See also here.
In other words, Donald claims that homosexual sex is “unnatural,” but he does not want to talk about hundreds of species of animals engaging in homosexual sex in the wild. He won’t go so far as to call gay animal sex “unnatural,” but doesn’t find zoological field work to be relevant. He doesn’t like talking about human beings as though they are animals. As to that thorny concept of what is “natural,” Donald would consider things such as line-dancing, SUVs, cosmetics and large crucifixes to be sufficiently natural. But one thing that is NOT natural is adult gay people who consensually, privately and intimately express their affection for each other.
I asked Donald whether it seemed fair to him that his religion, if it got a hold of the reigns of government, would prohibit gay people from engaging in the single solitary form of sexual intimacy that interested them, and prohibited this for their entire lifetimes. He shrugged and mentioned that the Bible forbids this. For Donald, it is not a matter of fairness.
I don’t know where any of this leads. Perhaps it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue at all. Perhaps the real problem is something rarely discussed. Perhaps it’s simply a matter that many people are uncomfortable with their animal bodies, including organs such as the penis . . . Oh, no. I uttered that word. I’m so very sorry. I don’t really know how to use a computer that well . . . I tried applying White-Out to the computer monitor, but I see that that word is still there. Well, please pretend that I didn’t say that word!
Donald said one other thing that I found curious. He insisted that marriage is a religious institution. His argument is thus straightforward: since marriage is a matter of religion and the Bible prohibits homosexual acts, then gays should not be able to get married. I find this argument strange in that marriage is actually two things: yes, it is a matter of tradition, including religious tradition. On the other hand, marriage is a civil institution. As marriage is currently established, it need not be a matter of religion at all. People commonly go before judges and get married without uttering a single word about religion. When I bring this up to people like Donald, he shrugs. He makes it clear that if people like him could ever take hold of our government, there would be no such thing as a purely civil marriage ceremony.
In sum, I found it curious that my differences with Donald were not really matters of clashing facts. Rather, our differences were focused at places where Donald was unable or unwilling to freely consider various facts.
Ironically, gay couples CAN have the religious element of marriage right now, in churches that embrace homosexuality. The legal protections, the aspect of marriage that doesn't concern social conservatives as much as the religious, gays can't get.
Like most people that have really delved into this issue, I find the fact that the government still institutes religiously-originated marriages disgusting. I think everyone should have civil unions, gay, straight, polyamorous, whatever. Those that opt for a religious ceremony can have it- totally independent of government affairs.
Oh, and just a word on Donald's suggestion of celibacy: Don't Christians believe that a person can commit the sin of adultery by acts that take place merely in their minds? To even think of the sin qualifies as committing the sin, if I remember correctly. Why doesn't this apply to homosexuality? Wouldn't gay celibacy still violate one of God's laws?
Erich,
I think you are correct that the real disconnect in your discussion with "Donald" had nothing to do with clashing interpretations of observable facts, but rather with a phenomenon that seems to be increasingly (and troublingly) common — one party's conscious (sometimes almost heroic) effort to ignore observable facts if they do not support a pre-determined position. If you saw the Daily Show last night, John Stewart was talking with famous virtue-holic William Bennett about gay marriage, and this phenomenon was in full view. Bennett simply refused to engage Stewart in any meaningful discussion about the basic facts underlying his position — rather, he started with his conclusions and that was that. I see this same phenomenon in conversations I have with otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people who simply refuse to deal with the observable facts about warrantless phone-tapping, faulty (or fraudulent) intelligence, or any of the myriad other instances of abuse by the current administration. Perhaps this is in part a function of the staggering amounts of information to which we now have access, combined with the speed at which news is being made — as a matter of survival (or a semblance of sanity), many of us have to make a quick decision on an issue and stick with it because we cannot take the time (or cannot face the risk) of questioning further. If that is true, then we're likely to make those decisions based on already programmed (but maybe never examined) philosophies — with the result that our positions become further cemented. To paraphrase, maybe the unexamined life is the only one that feels safe to live. Too bad.
I would have stopped Donald at the first sentence: "Donald is really perturbed that some people choose to engage in homosexual sex as a matter of sexual variety or perverted fun." What Donald's neighbors do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of Donald's business. It is no more his business than is their choice of breakfast cereal, where they choose to educate their kids, or what brand of bicycle they choose to ride to work. The problem with social conservatives is not that their opinions about sexuality are so often based on ignorance and bigotry, it is that they imagine their ignorance and bigotry ought to guide other peoples' (indeed, even total strangers') lives.
Sex is optional? For a minute, let's assume that's true. What else in life is optional that we would nevertheless refuse–rightly–to give up?
Reading good books (as opposed to The Good Book). Novels, in particular. What "purpose" do they serve? Nothing that is not entirely subjective.
Fine foods. Basic food is all you need to "survive"–why indulge in haute cuisine?
Music. Particularly the more abstract kind, like jazz or romantic neoclassical or electronic. Nothing "necessary" about it.
Art. Scultping, painting, glass-blowing, photography. What essential human necessity does it serve?
Would anyone seriously ban any of the above? There are religious interpretation of various sorts that do attempt to do exactly that, claiming that they are self-indulgent, hubristic, idolatrous, etc. Yet…
You should have asked "Donald" about the great homoerotic love stories in the Old Testament and why Yahweh chose to "honor" these folks (Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan…) rather than condemn them. You should have asked "Donald" how many kids he has and if, since he probably doesn't have a child a year, where the others are, or if he doesn't have sex with his wife for pleasure. And if he does, then isn't that wrong, since sex for pleasure has no "purpose"? And if it isn't wrong, then why is the plumbing so all-important that eternal damnation is connected to it?
Ah. Easier to simply say that such people have a deeply aesthetic problem with certain forms of behavior and that they have conveniently found support for what is a personal revulsion in their religion.
This, from Wikipedia on "Cognitive Dissonance":
—
Hence, a possible explanation of Donald's shrugging and unwillingness to consider various facts.
Yep, Erich is right on target. I am very familiar with cognitive dissonance and its effects on religious thinking. I actually researched a cult called "The Seekers," which was observed by Leon Festinger, the man who originally came up with the concept of cognitive dissonance. Basically, they predicted that the world was going to be destroyed by a flood on a specified date in 1954 and they would be the only ones rescued—by flying saucers! But then that day came, and, surprisingly, nothing happened! So did they give up their beliefs? No. Instead, they justified themselves by saying that their intense prayer saved the world. But then they predicted the world would end on another day, and, again, nothing happened. . . . Yet the strongest believers still held on to their faith! They really wanted to keep believing their story because they invested so much into it: dropping out of work, selling their possessions, etc. So they just convinced themselves they were right.
Regular conservative Christians (indeed, almost anyone devoted to a religion) display the same exact behavior: they ignore contradictory evidence and try to find any justification for their beliefs. After all, they had this religion all their lives, and it would be quite embarrassing to admit they were wrong all this time . . . not to mention that they probably devoted lots of time and energy to religious activity all for nothing! They would also be criticized by their fellow Christian family members and friends, holding the stigma of an unbeliever in a predominantly Christian community. I think that's partly why so many people just "follow the herd."
It's also quite silly that Donald tried to resort to argumentum ad naturam in his desperate attempt to justify his irrational position. Not only is that an official logical fallacy, but it wouldn't support his views even if it were valid. That is, of course, due to the fact that he blatantly ignored obvious facts like the occurance of homosexuality among animals and his acceptance of things such as SUV's and modern medicine, which are clearly "unnatural." If he says that "unnatural" can only apply to human characteristics that occur infrequently in the population, all you have to do is point out that there are plenty of human characteristics out there which are just as rare or rarer than homosexuality (like the ability to carry out really long calculation in your head). No one considers those "unnatural" or immoral, so why should we say the same for homosexuality?
I also want to address the question of whether sex is optional. First, how would one define the word "optional"? Well, I think we all agree that things that are necessary for survival (like food, water, oxygen, and sleep) are not merely optional; they are needs. Things that one can still live without, on the other hand, are optional. This means that, if you take the human species as a collective, sex is not "optional" unless you're okay with the extinction of the human race (disregard assisted reproductive technology, which isn't "natural" to begin with). But if you take a single individual, one can argue that it's optional because it's not necessary for his or her survival (I mean, Isaac Newton lived his entire life without it!). But you're still left with a problem. . . .
The major distinction between sex and all the things Jason mentioned (reading, fine foods, music, and art) is that those those things are not associated with natural biological urges. The thing that sex has in common with needs such as food, water, and sleep is that these things are not something you can merely ignore and put to the back of your mind (plus, they're all regulated by the same part of the brain: the hypothalamus). Let me use an analogy to demonstrate my point. For a normal human being, resisting sex is similar to a person addicted to smoking trying to resist cigarettes: technically, they can quit any time, but they still have a strong urge to do it which they can't ignore as easily as they can ignore fine art. On the other hand, a person who is not addicted to smoking can resist it without a problem, just like a regular person can resist art. Do you see the difference? The human body is designed in such a way that humans tend to develop these "cravings" for sex just like they do for food and water when they're hungry and thirsty, while such cravings are not targeted towards reading and art. Sure, it's easy for a child to resist it (because they do not have these urges), but it's not as easy for an adult. Can't Donald see the difference? Also, why would God give people a sexual urge if He considers it evil? Just to tease them? (And saying He did it to "test" them is not a reasonable justification, either. This is cruel and unnecessary, and there are plenty of other ways He can test them. It's also not very fair that He only targets certain individuals for no apparent reason, while giving others an easier life. Does a God like that really seem fair to you?)
Finally, I'd like to discuss the Biblical stance on homosexuality, which is really what it boils down to for people like Donald. He says that homosexuality is wrong simply because God said so–end of discussion. But God also gave a bunch of other strange commands such as prohibiting crossbreeding of plants and animals (Leviticus 19:19), wearing clothing woven of two kinds of materials (also Lev. 19:19), eating certain types of animals, and touching the skin of a dead pig (Lev. 11:6-8)—sorry, guys, no football. Oh, but God never said those things were an abomination, like He did about homosexuality! Well, He also happened to mention that eating shellfish is an "abomination" (Lev. 11:10). What now!? Why aren't conservative bigots worried about people eating shellfish, hmm? I mean, it's all the same to God according to the Bible.*
Oh, I know what the deal is. It appears that Christians simply choose which of God's commandments to obey, and which ones to ignore. This choice seems to be based purely on personal aesthetic values. People simply think it's "gross" to imagine the act of sodomy. Why? Perhaps they're just squeamish about it (which is probably due to the fact that the body parts involved in this act are also involved in excretory functions). It can also be due to their lack of confidence in their bodies, as Erich has suggested. The latter inevitably results from social conditioning, as humans in this society are taught to wear modest clothes and are discouraged from even discussing the process of human reproduction; after all, children don't learn about it until they're considered "mature," and even then, parents don't want their kids watching movies which mention sex or romance in any way. By contrast, the human predisposition to squeamishness is best explained by evolution; humans evolved to consider things like dirt and bodily fluids gross because it tends to protect them from disease. After all, the things that humans find gross do have a higher chance of containing bacteria or a virus. In the modern age, however, ignoring this evolutionary predisposition is not that big of a deal because of things like condoms and modern medicine.
But is it reasonable to impose your personal aesthetic beliefs on other people? Of course not! It's also unreasonable to impose your religious beliefs on them. Haven't these conservatives heard of something called the "separation of church and state," as stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution? How, then, can they justify making laws against homosexuality if they have no secular reasons for doing so? I just don't get it.
*Some Christians may argue that the prohibition of homosexuality in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:22) is not the only place in the Bible where it's forbidden. They say that the apostle Paul also spoke against it in Romans 1:26-27, so it must be wrong. But may I remind you that Paul is only human, and a lot of the things he said were merely his opinion, not God's? You don't believe me? Then you must also believe that it's a disgrace for women to have short hair and for men to have long hair, and that women should always cover their heads when praying (1 Corinthians 11). Oh yeah, he also discriminates against women in that same chapter. Morever, he thought that Jesus would come back very soon, while his generation was still alive (Philippians 4:5, Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 10:37); yet here we are, two thousand years later, and the world hasn't come to an end yet. So why would you just take that one thing that he said and consider it to be infallible truth, while simply disregarding all his other ridiculous statements? Clearly, there's no way to justify it.
P.S. Erich, I was wondering if you showed this blog to "Donald." If you haven't, I strongly advise you to let him read it; it might make him realize his mistakes. On the other hand, he can choose to ignore everything and subject himself to cognitive dissonance.
I agree with Yana's comment, but I want to play devil's advocate with her second paragraph, about how Christians "ignore contradictory evidence and try to find any justification for their beliefs…," I've noticed that Fundamentalist Christians try to apply this exact same language to scientists. Indeed, just substitute the word "Darwinist," "cosmologist," "environmentalistl," etc., for "Christian" in Yana's paragraph and you'll get the Fundamentalist argument against evolution, the Big Bang theory, global warming, etc. I'm not suggesting that the language is equally valid when Fundamentalists use it this way, but we should remember that cognitive dissonance isn't peculiar to religious Believers. There probably isn't a scientific theory that exists today which didn't at some earlier time have opposition from established scientists who were clinging (because of cognitive dissonance) to their own obsolete theories.
As regards what is "unnatural," Yana makes some great points about modern medicine. Indeed, there was a time when the Church considered all surgeries "unnatural," even blasphemous. For example, in the days of Leonardo Da Vinci, the Church had so many prohibitions involving the human body that Leonardo had to resort to clandestine methods to acquire the cadavers for his drawings. Likewise, consider the many Christians, even today, who refuse virtually all medical care, preferring instead to rely solely on prayer (and believing it is "God's will" if they die of something that could have easily been cured). And, of course, the debate about what is "immoral" still rages over topics such as embryonic stem cell research, human tissue cloning, artificial insemination, the "Plan-B" abortifacient, etc. I imagine there are many "Donalds" in this world who would even apply their "immoral" label to things such as cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation — egad!) and xenotransplantation.
As regards Donald's amusing suggestion that sex is "optional," it seems to me sex figures quite prominently in the lives of many conservative Christians, given, for example, the ubiquity of astonishingly large Catholic families. Indeed, most every religion throughout human history has promoted large families.
As regards Yana's comment about the separation of church and state, I once heard a Fundamentalist preacher arguing that the Constitution's separation of church and state does NOT mean the church should stay out of the state, it only means the state should stay out of the church.
One final comment I'll make is this: sometimes I wonder to what extent religious Believers label things "immoral" merely to try to make itself look relevant. If they weren't in the streets protesting about some issue that is none of their business, would the world pay them any attention at all?
Xenotransplantation? Man, they've got a word for everything!
As for "Donald," he was invited to this site a couple of months ago. Time will tell whether he will read this or, if he does read this, whether he will recognize himself.
I suspect this much: Donald sees himself as one of the courageous and steadfast gatekeepers of all that is good and just in society. He sees himself obediently playing that role despite getting pelted by rotten eggs hurled by ignorant, cackling and impudent people like me, bravely maintaining his assigned post all the while. Sometimes, he imagines God's thunderous yet loving yet terrifying voice: "Good boy, Donald." Donald is, indeed, a hero–it couldn't be otherwise! God knows that it is not easy keeping those degenerate monstrosities in their . . . place.
Holding the line against profligate conduct is obviously what the heavenly Father desires and that is indeed the end of Donald's inquiry. God is Good by definition. The Bible does not require God to be magnanimous or tolerant or loving in the way that admirable HUMANS are magnanimous, or tolerant or loving. For Donald, moral codes simply don't apply to God. God is "good" even when he wipes out 10,000 people in reaction to a slight offense by one person. God is reasonable even when he forbids eating those delicious shrimp or when He forbids wearing those shirts made of linen AND wool. He is magnanimous and loving even when He condemns millions of people who show physical affection in exactly the way He designed them to show physical affection.
When things get especially difficult for Donald, he might even shed a private tear: "Why do those freethinking people make it so difficult for me to defend against such depravity?"
It's not always easy to do one's stoic best to defend a missionary-position-half-dressed-in-the-dark way of life on this degenerate throwaway cesspool of a planet. Donald is especially frustrated that society won't allow him to force medical treatment on those "homosexuals." There are, after all, "proven" therapies and drugs that could make things more tolerable "for all of us." In his heart of hearts he knows that we've learned a lot since Alan Turing . . . it could be much better this time . . .
In the end, Donald knows that his difficult duty is a relatively short stint. In the course of this earthly frustrations, Donald occasionally smiles a dreamy smile as he anticipates . . . someday . . . breathing freely for eternity in a gay-free heaven.
Hi Erich.
On reading your piece on “Conversations with Don”: Earlier this evening I watched a local program featuring media personalities of both the liberal and the conservative persuassion. They were discussing the recent statements made by the reps from our wonderful state on prohibiting gay marriage. It got so heated I had to turn it off. I don’t find people yelling at each other and interrupting each other to be entertaining. No one seemed to be listening to anyone else, either. However, the gist of the liberal’s point of view was that our politicians are more interested in kicking this homosexual can around rather than discuss the war, gas prices, etc. I personally doubt that the politicians really care one way or the other but they do care about getting re-elected.
I find your willingness to understand how folks can hold to a belief even when they fly in the face of facts to be refreshing. I am working on practicing acceptance of folks who think differently than me. It helps to understand that folks cannot let go of their belief systems easily. This is the age of anxiety. People need to cling to their beliefs because they are so disempowered, and have given away their right to decide for themselves. Cognitive dissonance means that the brain will have a tilt experience before the belief can change.
There is a Zen story about two frogs: one who lives in a well, and one who lives near the ocean. The frog who lived in the well believed his well-world was the biggest, best, and most vast of worlds possible. One day the frog who lived near the ocean came to visit the well frog. When the well-dwelling frog asked his new friend if he was impressed by his deep well, the ocean frog replied that it was not so impressive. This amazed the well frog, and he demanded to know why the ocean frog was so unimpressed. When the ocean frog attempted to describe the ocean, the well frog refused to believe it. So the ocean frog convinced the well frog to come with him and see for himself. The well frog agreed to undertake the journey.
When, after a lot of hopping, they arrived at the ocean, the ocean frog turned to the well frog and asked him what he now thought. There was no reply. The well frog’s brain had exploded.
The Dalai Lama attended an International physics convention in San Francisco last year, and he stated quite clearly that if science proves a Buddhist belief to be incorrect, then that belief needed to be droppped or changed. Doncha just love that?
What is religion anyway? Blind, dogmatic, stubborn ignorance? I have talked with folks who know the Bible very well; there is plenty of contradiction to the “God wants all homosexuals to go to Hell” belief. Much of what your friend Donald and others believe is a very loose-cannon (pun intended, sorry) interpretation of the Bible. But I doubt very much that even this would change Donald’s mind.
There is a feature on NPR called “This I Believe”. On Monday they aired one written and read by a lawyer who believes in the letter of the law. He felt that belief in the Law is what keeps us from chaos and anarchy. Unfortunately there are many politicians who seem to believe that the Law does not apply to them! The lawyer who wrote the piece felt that personal belief is subjective and doesn’t matter much. He wrote his submission on considering that his belief in the Law was what did matter.
I found myself disagreeing with the lawyer who wrote the piece (You can undoubtedly find it by going to <font color="#00019b"> <a href="http://;www.NPR.org</font>;” target=”_blank”>;www.NPR.org</font>; it aired on Monday). Why? Because Law is based on beliefs held by a large number of people, and is subject to change and modification. In the instance of Gay rights and Gay marriage, religious belief has a strong influence on the letter of the law.
In attempting to practice MY belief in Acceptance of Others’ Right to Believe As They Will I realize that I don’t want just ANYONE’S religious beliefs to determine the Laws that govern my life.
There MUST be a separation of Church and State, and that separation is getting dangerously melded together. That’s what I believe!
To Erich's comment, "xenotransplantation" obviously derives from the same root as "xenophobia," which is perhaps another "xeno" that Donald would have issues with.
To both Erich's and Artemis' comments, as regards topics such as same-sex marriage, I can understand why conservatives would view such behaviors as "immoral" (viz., it breaches their version of the Bible), but I have never understood why they wish to impose their moral values, by law, on total strangers who are not Christians. Conservative Christians must realize that imposing their moral values on total strangers is insufficient to save the souls of those strangers (because entry into heaven requires faith in Jesus, not having behaviors imposed on you by law), so what is the motivation? Do conservative Christians fear that God will rain destruction on America, the way He supposedly did on Sodom & Gomorrah? If that is the motive for trying to forcibly mandate their version of moral behavior through laws, then why have the countries (and the American states) that have already legalized same-sex marriage not been the urnfortuate victims of God's wrath? Every parent knows that punishment of a child must be proximal to the infraction for it to be effective, yet God appears to be sitting on his hands (well, if God has hands) and doing nothing about it. So, if their motive isn't triyng to save other peoples' souls and it isn't trying to save country from God's wrath, then what is it? Well, one dictionary definition of "authoritarian" is "favoring the concentration of power in an elite ruling group that is not constitutionally responsible to the people" and one definition of "autocrat" is "someone who believes they receive the right to rule directly from God;" so, apparently, these people are all authoritarian autocrats. Others who fit this definition include: Napoleon, the Taliban, Hitler…and, yes, even the Pope. So, apparently, conservative Christians who seek to forcibly impose their moral values on others are motivated either by a secret belief that they are God's Nazis (indeed, notice the striking similarities between their rhetoric toward liberals and Hitler's rhetoric toward Jews) or by a secret belief that they are Protestant popes. Are these the types of people who should be making law in America? I think not.
Grumpypilgrim:
Of course you are correct in saying that many scientists—not just religious people—have used cognitive dissonance when confronted with contradictory theories about how the universe works. But when they do this, they are not practicing true science; scientific theories do, after all, rely on empirical evidence and are ALWAYS open to refutation IF new empirical evidence contradicts it. But the problem is that religious fundamentalists who accuse scientists of "ignor[ing] contradictory evidence and try[ing] to find any justification for their beliefs" are even more guilty of it because in most circumstances, their beliefs are not even partly based on objective empirical evidence. Besides, accusing all scientists of this based on just a few examples is a faulty generalization.
Also, there is a serious problem with the fundamentalist claim that "the Constitution’s separation of church and state does NOT mean the church should stay out of the state [and] only means the state should stay out of the church." If this is true, how are we supposed to decide which church is supposed to be involved with the state? There are numerous different Christian denominations (not to mention non-Christian religions) with conflicting viewpoints regarding homosexuality, contraception, and even modern medical treatment. . . . just to name a few. So why should we value one church's belief system over another? If we do this, all the churches that hold contradictory viewpoints would feel like their religious freedom is being violated, which contradicts the view that "the state should stay out of the church"—the very view that the aforementioned fundamentalist claims to hold! The First Amendment was clearly established to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
Yana has nicely summarized both points. Indeed, I was not suggesting that scientists and Believers are equally guilty of cognitive dissonance, but many scientists are surprisingly wedded to particular theories in much the same way that Believers are wedded to their particular interpretations of their holy books. It happens in science because experiments are often inconclusive, yet still tantalizingly suggestive of one theory or another. It also happens because scientists sometimes publish their results too quickly (a consequence of the 'publish-or-perish urge to add to their publications scorecard), but they can then become trapped if their conclusions are later found to be defective. Scientists live by their reputations, so admitting a major flaw in one's reasoning can require eating an awful lot of humble pie. Some scientists swallow hard and do it, while others find the meal so unpalatable that they, instead, defend their results no matter how much logic assails them. (I have personally encountered just such a situation. The author of a well-known book about bicycle wheels asserts in his first chapter that a bicycle wheel "stands" on the spokes underneath the hub. However, since all of the spokes in a bicycle wheel remain always in tension, and "standing" on them would require them to be in compression, the chapter is almost comically wrong. Nevertheless, the author (who has an engineering degree from a famous school) has for decades steadfastly maintained that his book is correct. Perhaps not surprisingly, his "defense" usually consists of insulting his critics' ancestry.)
Yana has also correctly described the problem of not separating church and state. Fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. try to sidestep this problem by asserting that "America is a Christian nation;" thus, trying to suggest that their narrow opinions represent a majority (indeed, a universal) viewpoint. However, there are so many different faces to Christianity (see my post about this: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195), that their suggestion is clearly absurd. Indeed, I've seen televangelists on one Christian TV channel actually criticizing the evangelical effort to impose Fundamentalist laws on the nation. Exactly as Yana describes, they fear that their own Christian beliefs will be trampled if Fundamentalists succeed, so they call for a very wide separation between church and state.
Since Fundamentalists often cite the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence that God considers homosexuality a major sin punishable by death, I would like to elucidate my views regarding this incident. The Bible never explicitly states that these two cities are being punished merely for the act of homosexuality; it just says their sins are very "grievous" and provides an example to illustrate this claim. It specifically cites a story of Lot being visited by two angels, allowing them to stay at his house for the night. What happens next is expressed in Genesis 19:4-5:
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
When Lot refused, the men didn't just go away—they started to break down the door! Luckily, his two guests had supernatural powers and struck those men with blindness to prevent them from finding it. Then, they proceeded to tell Lot to flee from the city because they were going to destroy it.
Did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah just because homosexulity was present there? Not likely. It seems more plausible to conclude that God was disgusted with their other sins, like attempting to gang rape travelers who came to visit their city. Indeed, these atrocious acts make homosexuality itself seem trivial and irrelevant.
One may also ask, "Why would God impose the punishment of death for homosexual sex if He doesn't consider it a mortal sin?" In response, I would remind this person that God, as mentioned in the Torah, also imposed the death penalty for many other petty offenses, like working on the Sabbath (even gathering firewood!), disobeying your parents, and not having the proof of being a virgin on your wedding day (if you're a girl). Indeed, the Torah may be compared to the Code of Hammurabi in its brutal espousal of capital punishment. Since no one in this day and age would consider such things worthy of death, or even consider them to be misdemeanors, it is safe to say that the Torah's silly laws are outdated and are clearly unworthy of being made into law in a secular nation.
Further to Yana's comment: indeed, the Bible contains many examples of punishments we now consider barbaric — cutting off the hand of a thief comes to mind, as does stoning to death a woman who commits adultery. Given that the Bible also says bearing false witness is a sin, it is curious that so many Fundamentalists carefully ignore these embarrassing parts of the Bible, thus bearing false witness to what it contains.
obviously you people are trying to justify your homosexuality….however, as a christian (and no, i do NOT belong to a cult, as one person tried to claim in an earlier post), i firmly believe in what the Bible says…a man shall not be with a man and a woman shall not be with a woman…i guess those simple terms are easily ignored by those who are trying to find excuses for their behavior…but those of us who are christians know the truth – if you behave in a manner that is not pleasing to God, in the end, you will pay the price by going to hell. it isn't too late, however….you can ask for forgiveness of these sins, and God will forgive you – he is a kind and wonderful God who has given us so much more than we deserve on this earth…
I would like to respond to "me" (who is not actually me). I am not gay (nor do I have any reason to believe anyone else who writes for this site is gay). It might be extremely difficult for many fundamentalists to believe, but the writings of these authors are not to justify our own lifestyles.
If you could go back 25 years, you would find that I was uncomfortable with gays and that I was sometimes insensitive. I got over it because I got tired of being intolerant. The remedy: I started taking the time to get to know people who were gay. I noticed that what they did in the bedroom had nothing to do with my friendships with them or my admiration for them. I've found that many of them were intelligence, of high moral standards and highly involved in improving their communities. Many of them live quietly (in your town, "me," whereever that might be) in long-term committed relationships.
I realize that more than a few gay people are out-of-control sexual deviants. This might be hard to believe, but I've also seen first-hand evidence that many heterosexuals are equally out-of-control and equally sexually deviant. If you don't believe me, go to Google, type in "sex" and hit ENTER. The lesson: don't just huge diverse groups of people by their least admirable members. You wouldn't want to be judged by heterosexual deviants, would you? You wouldn't want others to judge you on the basis of those Christians who handle poisonous snakes in church, would you (I'm assuming that you are not of that cult)?
I'd recommend that "me" take the time to meet a few gay people (in my experience, most people intolerant of gays treat gays like lepers–they keep them at a distance). Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament gives us any reason to treat fellow human beings with the derision and condescension based on sexual orientation. Check out the following posts, for example: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=464 , http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=422 and http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=310 .
As regards the opening comment by "me," I've never understood why some people believe that only homosexuals support equal rights for homosexuals. That's like saying that anyone who supports equal rights for women must be a woman, or anyone who was ever outraged by what Hitler did to the Jews must be Jewish, or anyone who supports the ethical treatment of poodles must be a poodle. It's a ridiculous belief.
I also don't understand why some Christians pontificate about who is going to heaven and who is not. Whether or not the life of some other person is pleasing to God cannot possibly be known by anyone. Furthermore, the argument that homosexuals are all going to hell because they are sinners is ridiculous, because the Bible says that *everyone* is a sinner. Accordingly, homosexuals are just as likely to be "saved" as anyone else…including, "me."
Reply to "me"–there may be some truth in his observation about justifying sexual preference, although I for one am not trying to justify my homosexuality. Rather, if you take as a given that part of your identity is your sexuality, then by denying the validity of someone's sexual identity with which you disagree, you deny the basic right to have a sexual identity on any rational basis. I believe gays have a perfect right to be what they are (and express it) because I want no one to tell me I have no right to my sexuality, which doubtless some would find objectionable.
So, no, I'm not justifying my homosexuality–which is not part of my identity–I am justifying the idea that sexuality–mine, yours, the people down the street–is not something from a cookie cutter ideal laid down in a dusty book three thousand years ago by people who, I feel, paid just a little bit too much attention to Other People's Kinks.
To echo Jason's comment, I didn't realize the pervasiveness of homophobia in the cultural landscape until about five or six years ago (remember, that would have made me about 12 or 13 years old and still rather oblivious). When I realized that throngs of people hated or prejudged gays as a cohesive whole of people, I actually found it laughable. We always hear about the "perversion" of the homosexuals; why not the foot fetishists?, I wondered. Why not the swingers, the married heterosexual couples that enjoy swapping spouses sexually? What makes homosexuality so particularly disgusting and immoral?
With the quick google search Erich mentioned, you can find dozens upon dozens of sexual tastes that seem vastly more strange or unnatural than homosexuality, at least in my opinion. But I don't see a reason to morally object to them, or to throw all people who enjoy a sexually deviant act into a category. Should we disallow all fetishists from marrying, to protect marriage from their tarnishing perversion?
I would like to respond the idea that animal homosexual or transgender tendencies some how justify human homosexual activity. (from a purely logical and scientific standpoint.)
This argument is unscientific and actually does more to hurt the homosexual movement's scientific credibility. Let me show you why.
Lets start by reviewing the logic of this argument.
The argument of animal homosexuality firstly asserts that since homosexual behaviour is observable in animals, that it must be a result of instincts. Nature calls for animals to act upon their instincts; accordingly, homosexual behaviour is in agreement with natural animal behaviour. Man is of course an animal, so homosexual behaviour must also be in agreement with human nature.
This line of thinking is seriously flawed. The first objection any logical person, or scientist for that matter, should make is this is that by following the idea that homosexual acts are completely natural, things like parental killing and eating of offspring, cannibalism, devouring mates, abandoning offspring, stealing possessions, sustaining large harems with aggressive male dominance etc, should also be in accordance to animal nature. (I should add, that these phenomena have been observed and extensively documented as universally occurring on a far greater scale than rare instances of observed seemingly homosexual behaviour.) When humans are brought into the picture, things are complicated even further. Are such tendencies that I touched on therefore in accordance to human nature as well? It’s the exact same logic. I hope you can see this.
Beyond that misleading fallacy, it can be shown that there is actually no “homosexual instinct” in animals at all and it is only through poor science that advocates of the homosexual movement read their own human desires and motivations into the world of animal behavior.
In conclusion, it is completely illogical to use irrational animal behaviour as a measure of what is morally acceptable in a human society. If any observed animal behaviour then justified a human behavior counterpart, then rape, murder, theft, violence, abuse and cruelty would be common and acceptable human acts.
To respond to Richard. The example of the bonobos is a telling one because they are genetically almost identical to human animals. Within bonobo communities, female-female or male-male sex is not an isolated aberration. Rather, sex is woven thoroughly within these communities to facilitate bonding. See Frans De Waal's Bonobos for rigorous and scientific analysis: In light of these scientific observations, protests that homosexual sex is "unnatural" seems to be either A) contradicted by evidence or B) a category error.
I'm not saying that many people don't like the idea of homosexuality. Those people certainly exist, but whether such acts are "natural" is a question that animal observations appear to be addressing. Here is a huge list of animals for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior.
You don’t seem to have understood why your argument is logically flawed. You simply cannot use observed animal behaviour to justify what is acceptable moral behaviour for humans!
The logic of your argument is fallacious on a number of levels. Let us forget the rest of the animal world for a minute, even IF homosexuality was an extremely common placed phenomena in human circles, which is only mildly true, (heterosexual practices grossly outnumber any form of homosexual activity), that would serve no cause logically. This cannot be made as an argument for its validity as a moral practice. This is a classic use of an "Appeal to common practice" fallacy. Just because some people do X, X must be moral and right. etc. Now, if one cannot even look to the human homosexual behaviour as justification for its action, how much more fallacious is it to try to use animal behaviour as a yardstick for morality?! Additionally, it can be shown that even in the animal world, there is NO homosexual instinct. So even if it was purely logical to read human motivations and intentions into animal behaviour and derive our morality from it, we couldn’t do it for homosexual behaviour, because it is still an unnatural animal behaviour. Previously, I didn’t want to go into a refutation of your example homosexual animal cases, but I will touch on the bonobo case. I stress though, that it doesnt even matter what bonobos do; if bonobo's do something, it has absolutely no bearing on if its right or wrong for humans or not, regardless of how genetically similar they are. Mice are remarkably genetically similar to humans. Mice are also known to frequently demonstrate infanticide behaviour when under stressed. Does that justify humans killing their infants when they are stressed? No! Norway rats also will kill deformed or 'runt' offspring, and will eat any of their offspring if the mothers become malnourished. Should this behaviour also be carried into human behaviour? According to your logic infanticide is much more 'natural' than any observed homosexual tendencies (but I am going to show that both behaviours are NOT instinctive and therefore are not considered a 'natural animal behaviour' anyway).
Initially I should state that anyone who is involved in even the most elementary animal behaviour observation will tell you that homosexuality (along with filicide and cannibalism for that matter) is an exception to the norm. This behaviour is not a result of animal instincts but results from other factors such as clashing stimuli, confused animal instincts, inability to express affective states, conflict avoidance behavior and tension diffusion. But it must be admitted that homosexual behaviour in the animal world is a rare and abnormal behaviour. Your “huge list” of animals that have been seen to be associated with some kind of transgender, or homosexual behaviour (which for the vast majority of them is not a sexual behaviour, but serves a parenting or social function.) For none of them is it an instinctive behaviour.
Animal instincts are not obliged to follow absolute determined paths, they adapt to internal and external stimuli. Moreover, animal cognition is entirely sensorial, limited to the sense: sound, smell, touch, taste and vision. Animals do not have the intellectual perception or cognitive ability of humans; therefore, animals often confuse one sensation with another or one object with another. Also, it should be reminded that an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. But, instinctive impulses can suffer variations if other sensory stimuli or memories get in the way. The conflict between two or more instincts can also sometimes change how the organism perceives the original impulse.
In the case of humans, we have an intellect which can make decisions when two instinctive reactions clash. We can choose which path is best to follow, even if the best path is against the most conditionally favored instinct. Animals do not have the same level of cognitive ability, there is no intellect, so when two instinctive impulses clash, the one with the most favored circumstances will prevail. Sometimes, these internal or external stimuli responsible for an animal's instinctive impulses result will in abnormal behaviour such as filicide, cannibalism and homosexuality.
In the case of filicide, or infanticide, it is usually a result of clashing instincts. In the case of cats killing their kittens, it is a result of two instinctive modes in the mother cat becoming switched. ( female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order NOT to harm their offspring. If the "hunt mode" is not completely switched off and the cats become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill, dismember and eat their kittens. The small size, erratic movement and high voices sometimes trigger hunting behavior. Sometimes the maternal behavior instinct is overrided by the hunting instinct. The same type of thinig occurs for cannibalism.
And now for the bonobo. As I mentioned before, another reason for abnormal behaviours is an animal’s inability to express its affective states, especially seen in higher mammals. Animals lack human intellect, so they are very limited in how they can express their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.). The range that these states are expressed is very ambiguous. Usually all they have at their disposal is their instincts. Sometimes instincts such as the reproduction are “borrowed” to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness etc. This accounts for the seeming homosexual behaviour in bonobos. This is classic example of instinct “borrowing.” These chimps will engage in what seems like sexual behavior in order to express affective states. According the zoologist of Frans B. M de Waal, an expert in bonobo behaviour, this type of behaviour is the bonob’s answer to avoiding conflict. There are two reasons for bonobo’s nonreproductive “sexual activity” Firstly, anything that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in some sort of sexual contact. For instance, if two bonobos approach a box thrown into their enclosure, they may briefly mount each other before playing with the box. While in other species such a situation leads to conflict or fighting, the bonobos have become quite tolerant because they use sexual contact to divert attention and to diffuse tension. Bonobo sex also occurs in aggressive situations. For instance, a jealous male might chase another away from a female. To prevent a future conflict, the dominant male might engage in scrotal rubbing of the male. This is also observed with females. An older female will hit a younger female producing a brief conflict that is resolved by genital rubbing between the two.
This type of sexual activity is seen in other animals as well as you mention with your “huge list”. Other animals have been observed to mount another of the same sex and engaging in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their intentions are very different. For instance, dogs do this to express their dominance. It is a demonstration of social power when a dog mounts another, not sex. Female dogs have been seen to do the same thing to express dominance. Another reason for this abnormal canine behaviour is that sometimes the mere smell of an estrus female will be enough to trigger an uncontrolled mounting instinct. If a male bears the scent of a female it has recently come in contact with, any male that smells it will often mount that very male as a result of confused instincts.
Homosexual behaviour in other animals is usually explained by the failure of one to identify the sex of the other. There is frequent confusion in the lower species of the animal kindom as sex becomes more tenuous to detect.
Therefore, homosexual animals do not exist. Even Simon LeVay (an acclaimed homosexual scientist) admitted that the scientific evidence supports no homosexual animals, but that the observations are results of isolated acts and confused instincts. Though ‘homosexual behavior’ is common in the animal world, it is very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior, especially to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Therefore, a “homosexual orientation”, if such a thing exists in animals is an extreme rarity.
Despite the appearance of some "homosexual" animal behavior, this does not mean that there is a "homosexual" instinct. Dr. Antonio Pardo, (Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain) explains it this way: “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”
Finally, as I have repeatedly stated, you cannot apply human psychodynamics to the animal world, that is interpret animal’s motivation and desire in human terms. Even if animal homosexuality was a widespread phenomena, even if it could be shown to be a natural instinct for some animals, that would do nothing for the homosexual movement’s cause. To maintain any “scientific” credibility, you must stick to the human species first of all, and second of all, even there, the “appeal to common practice” fallacy should be avoided at all costs. To argue scientifically for homosexual behaviour one must turn to the medical implications, health consequences, and psychological effects of such a lifestyle. And regardless of what we observe in the animal world, animal behaviour cannot be used as a blueprint for morality and for a model of what we want our society to look like.
Richard says: "You don’t seem to have understood why your argument is logically flawed. You simply cannot use observed animal behaviour to justify what is acceptable moral behaviour for humans!"
So, Richard. What are YOU using for your yardstick for your opinion that gay sex is morally abhorrent? An ancient book? Personal preference? In other words, are you setting aside Nature when considering what is "natural"?
I never claimed that animals have conscious, deliberate sexual relationships. But it's not all accidental. I guarantee you that the female bonobos are not repeatedly "accidentally" having sex with other females. The behavior of non-human animals must always be taken with a grain of salt before applying conclusions wholesale to humans. But the many observed incidents of animal homosexuality (in many species) makes open-minded people reluctant to condemn homosexual human behavior as "unnatural."
The flaw in the argument against homosexual practice is the use of a concept of "normal" which is based on the assumption–usually unspoken, but not always–that the so-called "function" of sex is procreation. While it is true that sex is inextricably linked to reproduction, it is not true that this is its entire function. If you base your conclusion of what "natural" (or normal or, in this instance, moral) means for sex exclusively on procreation, then a determination that homosexual behavior is not only abnormal but evolutionarily counterproductive and therefore, by some reading, naturally perverse is perfectly logical.
However, if you remove that condition–procreation–and look at sex as something else, namely a method of communication (in humans as in other species a source of pleasure) then you have to examine sexual dynamics instead of procreational demands to draw your conclusions.
What do homosexuals get out of sex? Presumably the same thing heterosexuals to–it just takes a different pathway through the psyche. On that basis, sex has one function which rejects "natural" vs "unnatural" pigeonholing, and renders the argument against homosexual practice moot.
You can't have it both ways–if it's pure Darwinian impetus that drives your determination of sexual "appropriateness"–i.e. that sex is only for procreation and the longterm benefit of the species–then no morality pertains. If however you're going to apply human moral conditions, then you have to reject Darwinian imperatives, and such arguments become meaningless. Then what is appropriate becomes what we say it is, regardless of "instinct" or "natural" predilection.
To Richard and "me":
Life is often a long, cold and lonely journey. If someone can do what seems nearly impossible these days, and find someone who loves and cares for them, does it really matter if they happen to be the same sex? If god is love, why would she deny us love if we find it?
Open your hearts "Christians". Accept everyone at your table like Jesus told you to do.