http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/453646%3fformat=html
The Anglican Church will order its world leaders to sign an unbreakable covenant forbidding the ordination of openly gay bishops, according to British reports.
The covenant will be unveiled in a long-awaited report, in an effort to heal a deep rift in the church over the issue of homosexuality.
The Church’s 38 provinces would be made to sign a “unity agreement”, preventing the ordination of openly gay bishops such as Gene Robinson, who was consecrated in the United States last year.
A spokesman for the Church declined to comment on the Times report, calling it “speculation”.
It’s been reported a so-called “star chamber” court would be set up to judge cases in which provinces were accused of breaking the pact.
Those found guilty would effectively be suspended. In extreme cases, churches would be denied the right to claim they are “in communion” with the church’s spiritual head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the newspaper said.
It did not say whether the report would punish liberal US Anglicans, known as Episcopalians, for ordaining Robinson or Canadian Anglicans who voted to approve same-sex marriages.
Both moves flouted official church policy and drew howls of protest from conservatives in North America, Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Conservatives have called upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to punish the liberals, while the liberals say they are simply reflecting the wishes of their parishioners.
The report is also expected to propose a system of “alternative episcopal oversight” for conservative North American parishes unable to accept same-sex marriage or Robinson’s ordination.
It said the US church would be disciplined only if it refuses to allow parishes to pursue alternative oversight.
Several conservative parishes in the United States have already turned their backs on their liberal brethren by placing themselves under the jurisdiction of traditionally-minded Anglican churches in Africa.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/453646%3fformat=html
And, once Robinson goes back to being a parish priest with a concubine instead of a bishop with one, there will be alot of suckers who declare “victory”. It won’t happen.
The report is trivial. It says nothing about laymen in the same situation, or priests. Or priestesses! If it is OK for them (And in the Anglican Communion it *certainly* is) to openly have/be a concubine, pray tell on WHAT basis do the the great minds of Anglicanism say bishops can’t? That would involve discussing the New Testament. Or as one bishop said when they were dealing with Pike 40 years ago, “You mean we’re going to have to talk about God?”
I think you are right. Banning gay bishops might avoid the schism, short-term at least, but it doesn’t deal with the real problem.
While I thought it was great that the Episcopal Church found a role for Gene Robinson that allowed him to serve his God, the position of Bishop was clearly not the appropriate role. There are many Gay people who love God and are struggling to reconcile their faith and their identities. The last thing we want to do is drive them away God.
However, if you love your Church then you want to avoid subjecting it to unnecessary strife and division over avoidable conflicts. The elevation of Gene Robinson was unduly provactive and painful for many Anglicans and Episcopalians and I can’t see what possible benefit justifies nearly tearing the Church apart.
Dean, you state: “There are many Gay people who love God and are struggling to reconcile their faith and their identities.”
This assumes that there is an homosexual identity that is at odds with faith. If one identifies oneself only as an homosexual, such would be the case. To acknowledge such an identity is the secular trap, however. That trap leads to the pressure to “modernize” the faith to be “inclusive” of all people, etc., etc. I don’t think that I really need to point out that the faith is already inclusive of all people who are willing to conform their lives to the will of God as Jesus did in the Garden.
You further state: “I can’t see what possible benefit justifies nearly tearing the Church apart”. It is obvious that for many homosexual activists, there primary goal is to reshape the Church and therefore Jesus Christ in their own image rather than submitting their sin to God’s salvific grace. They want to tear the Church apart.
Dean, you wrote, “The last thing we want to do is drive them away [from] God.” (The word in brackets is what I assume you meant to type.) If the unequivocal position on homosexuality in the Christian tradition drives homosexual people away, then at least there is clarity and honesty in the situation. But if people whose beliefs and practices superficially resemble but actually contradict that tradition are encouraged to hang around through a distortion of the tradition, then they have been tempted away from God. In neither case does anyone reach the truth.
As Dennis Prager says, “Clarity is preferable to agreement.” And here’s Revelation 3:15-16: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
Michael – I’ve criticized Conservatives for sometimes using politics to divide the Church. In this situation, it is Liberals that are guilty of putting the political agenda first and the Church second.
Dean has bought into the idea (promulgated by the gay lobby and generally accepted in popular culture) that sexual desire constitutes an ontological category. Descarte claimed “I think, therefore I am.” The modern claims “I feel, therefore I am” with this corollary: “What I feel determines who I am.” Sexual desire serves as a foundational concept of being, and the object of that desire defines it.
The foundation category is not homosexual or heterosexual, but male and female. The traditional (biblical) concept needs to be overthrown to legitimize desire as foundational, which is why all thinking that seeks this legitimization drifts towards androgyny. Further, in the elevation of the body as the ground and source of this ontological redefinition, the body ends up being devalued. It is seen as little more than a sensate machine and any deeper sense of personhood incorporating the body along with mind and spirit is diminished. Ultimately the body is shorn from personhood altogether (pornography as diabolic rebellion?).
Aceticism restores this lost balance, and thus proper awareness.
Side note: I think one reason you see people piercing their bodies is that it serves as kind of backhanded aceticism, a way to impose discipline on the body despite the belief that such discipline is unnecessary or even undesirable. IOW, some piercings (and other bodily disfigurings) use disorder as a way to restore order to an interior life where a belief in order does not exist. (Like Paul says, you can do nothing against the truth.)
Bill – I actually thought the same thing as I went for my little lunch-time walk around the office park: both gay rights activists and conservative traditionalists would be unhappy with the position I advocated.
First I believe that God is always calling human beings to Him one way or another. As I turn my radio dial on Sunday morning while driving to Church I hear the love of God expressed in so many different musical forms it is truly startling. One radio station plays Christian Hip Hop songs, another Christian Rock, another African-American Gospel, another Blue-Grass Gospel, and so on until I come to my own Church and hear Byzantine chant.
For me the real miracle of the day of Pentacost was that God demonstrated that He wants to talk to every person, no matter what language they speak or where they come from. Likewise I believe God is even calling Gay people and I think it would be sinful to interpose ourselves between them and God. Admittedly we have to walk a fine line of between being welcoming and not compromising the teachings of our faith.
I also tried to think of what my reaction would be if some faction tried to take an action as similarly controversial and politically motivated, as the elevation of Gene Robinson, in our Orthodox Church. (Actually it’s impossible to have a Gay Orthodox Bishop because Othodox Bishops have to be celibate, right?) The pain and divisiveness that the such an action would inflict on the people of our Church, as well as the wasteful diversion of our time, resources and emotional energy spent battling over the issue would be unacceptable. God’s work and the ability of the Church to carry it out greatly outweigh any political or social agenda in importance.
Fr. Hans writes: ” Dean has bought into the idea (promulgated by the gay lobby and generally accepted in popular culture) that sexual desire constitutes an ontological category. Descarte claimed ?I think, therefore I am.? The modern claims ?I feel, therefore I am? with this corollary: ?What I feel determines who I am.? Sexual desire serves as a foundational concept of being, and the object of that desire defines it. . . . The foundation category is not homosexual or heterosexual, but male and female.”
Inasmuch as your analysis works, it’s only because for the great majority of people opposite-sex attraction is built into the maleness or femaleness. When I was a little boy, I was attracted to little girls. It wasn’t a choice; it was just there, and for me there was no difference between having male anatomy and being attracted to females.
My personal view is that the process of the development of gender differentiation and sexual attraction involves many components including anatomical, hormonal, social, and psychological. In calling male- and femaleness the foundational distinction, you focus only on the anatomical to the exclusion of all else. While for most people the anatomical, hormonal, social, and psychological are nicely aligned, that doesn’t always happen. In other words, with this issue anatomy alone isn’t determinative nor does it equate to ontology. I believe the foundational category here is not anatomy but self-identity. Self-identity is based on a large number of factors, some of which are fixed and unalterable and some of which are not. I believe that sexual attraction is generally fixed, though there may be some cases in which it is not. But the point is that sexual attraction and orientation is a major component of self-identity, both for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Jim, you illustrate my point. As I said, any attempt to define sexual desire as ontology necessitates a drift towards androgyny. It can’t be any other way. The body is reduced to sensate mechanism. A neo-Manicheaism seems to be developing here.
Dean, while I appreciate your wonderment over the universal message of God’s love, I notice that yet again you lose sight of the gospel. As Orthodox Christians, we don’t just say, “God loves everybody and so everything goes.” We believe that God reveals Himself through His Word. I mean Christ; I also mean the Holy Scripture, the Word incarnate in language. Not everything goes, but only the will of God. Those who do not follow His will are not included in His kingdom. It may not be the Church’s job to gather in the wheat and burn out the weeds, but that doesn’t mean that the Church can’t be clear and firm in distinguishing what makes a weed and what makes wheat. God’s invitation to us requires we give certain things up.
Bill writes: “We believe that God reveals Himself through His Word. I mean Christ; I also mean the Holy Scripture, the Word incarnate in language.”
Bill, the argument on the other side is that there are many things in the scripture that are culturally conditioned — that not everything in scripture is a reflection of divine will.
Take, for example, the issue of slavery. Slavery enjoys support in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament slaves are enjoined to be “obedient” to their masters — not on only the to kind masters, but also to the “skolios,” literally the “crooked.” The Christian slave who suffers wrongfully under a cruel master is commanded to endure it patiently, following the example of Christ. The New Testament also indicates that believers could be slave owners. In spite of existing in an empire largely run by slave labor, the New Testament offers no condemnation of the practice. Later on some Christians did come to oppose slavery, but this took hundreds of years to develop. Slavery persisted even after Christianity became the state religion. While it is true that Christians came to oppose slavery, you also end up with things like the interesting third canon of the Council of Gangra: “If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”
The interesting thing to me is that slavery is condemned by religious people not because it somehow violates the Bible; it doesn’t. They condemn it because it’s cruel.
But it wasn’t always like that. There is a certain line of thought in Christianity that holds that no one has any kind of “right” to happiness or pleasure or fulfillment. For the slave, if his master beats him, well, that’s too bad, but he just needs to look at it like he’s partaking in the sufferings of Christ.
This is the comfort that conservative Christians offer to homosexuals today.
If you’re homosexual you have no right to happiness or pleasure or fulfillment. You have no right to any kind of romantic relationship. We don’t want to see you holding hands in public. You should never be allowed to adopt children, regardless of what kind of parent you would be. In some states we will even attempt to pass legislation forbidding any positive mention of homosexuality in schools. We will rally public opposition to you and try to have state and federal constitutional prohibitions against homosexual marriage, especially since this gives us a political advantage over our opponents. If you want to have a permanent, committed relationship, you cannot have even that. Some of us will even try to make all homosexual activity illegal so that we can punish you and send you to prison. While all this is going on, we heterosexuals ourselves will enjoy all the pleasures and privileges of marriage. When it comes to children we will place few restrictions on ourselves so that all heterosexuals, no matter how profoundly unqualified to be parents, will be able to have all the children they want. In order to protect the institution of marriage you cannot marry, even as we marry and divorce multiple times. Heterosexual drug addicted criminals can marry, but you cannot. Serial killers can marry, but you cannot. Osama bin Laden can marry, but you cannot.
And if you don’t like that, well, that’s just too bad. This is what God wants, and if you’re a Christian, you should be willing to partake of the sufferings of Christ through permanent, total, and unfailing sexual asecticism, even though few heterosexuals could bear that burden. If you’re not a Christian, well, that’s your problem.
Furthermore, any Christian who suggests otherwise will be condemned as outside the tradition. In the language of the Council of Gangra, if anyone shall teach a homosexual, under pretext of piety, that homosexuality is not absolutely wrong and forbidden, let him be anathema. Thus as we condemn any and all homosexual activity, so we also condemn anyone in the church who would offer you support.
Note 12
From an admitted theological simpleton:
Jim, if the Bible is taken to teach that homosexuality is a perversion of something ultimately good (sexuality) then if you believe in God you must believe in his power to save and to give us the power to overcome sin in our lives.
I think that you are first committed to the idea that homosexuality is an immutable genetic trait, and as such it doesn’t occur to you to suggest that God might help sincrely repentant sinners overcome this type of sin, much as God has demonstrably helped so many overcome other types of sins and addictions.
I very quickly get out of my depth in terms of theology, but, many people have direct experience of the healing power of God. I don’t really hear this angle discussed in the theological debates.
Unfortunately, I am also aware of many who have been subjected to exorcisms, electric shock therapy, hypnosis and aversion therapy to no avail. Maybe they’re just not trying hard enough, I guess.
As I mentioned in another post, I think that the causes of homosexuality are probably many and complex. There may be a genetic component in addition to other developmental, social, and psychological factors. Thus it would not surprise me if at least some homosexuals might be responsive to certain therapies. In the absence of definitive evidence I think we have to keep that open as a possibility. But even so, it appears that there are few people for whom such therapy would be effective.
To be utterly blunt, I think there are matters about which Bible is just plain wrong. I think it is wrong on slavery and that the lack of an unambiguous condemnation of slavery is a reflection of the culture and economics of the times rather than a revelation of the divine will. To some extent I think the biblical condemnation of homosexuality is also wrong, however it may be couched in religious language. It think it is perfectly right to address issues of promiscuity, unfaithfulness, sexual exploitation, prostitution, and so on. But these issues are related to all people, not just to homosexuals.
To the extent that homosexual orientation is unalterable I think it is cruel and unrealistic to expect total lifelong abstainance. Surely few heterosexuals could live like that; none that I know. And in denying the idea of marriage or even anything like marriage we make sure that homosexuals exist in a morally ambiguous situation in which their relationships never receive any official sanction — in which a committed relationship is a kind of perpetual “shacking-up” that exists outside of any legal framework. Not because they want it do be that, but because we insist that it be that.
Note 15
Well, your candor is refreshing. You state that you think the Bible is “just plain wrong.” This means that you concede that the Bible condems homosexuality and you are not trying to negotiate some tortuous argument that the texts have been misinterpreted in the past.
It seems that your argument is that the Bible was “just plain wrong” on slavery and that Christians have rejected Biblical teaching on slavery, so should Christians decide that the Bible is “just plain wrong” on homosexuality. I don’t think that the Scriptural treatment of slavery is comparable to the Scriptural treatment of homosexuality. Slavery was a social and legal institution. One could have argued in the early Church that Christians were not interested in a kingdom in this world and that they were not necessarily called to reform defects in the law in place, that their task was to save souls. Paul pointed out that men and women and slave and free were equal before God. Homosexuality is a perversion of healthy sexuality which undercuts the family and the rearing of children. I won’t repeat what I find to be compelling secular arguments to this effect.
Turning to the Biblical treatment of homosexuality, we find a direct and unequivocal condemnation by St. Paul in the most uncertain terms. He gives what is to me a convincing explanation of how homosexual conduct is the result of a hardening of the conscience. If we ignore the wisdom of Paul on this ground, I fear we will be totally lost. I take my chances with St. Paul.
Missourian writes: “This means that you concede that the Bible condems homosexuality and you are not trying to negotiate some tortuous argument that the texts have been misinterpreted in the past.”
Right. I would add that the Bible never addresses the issue of long-term, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships, and that some of the condemnation of homosexuality may have been in response to prostitution, etc. Nonetheless, I can’t imagine that the early Christians would have approved of homosexuality for any reason.
Missourian: “It seems that your argument is that the Bible was ?just plain wrong? on slavery and that Christians have rejected Biblical teaching on slavery, so should Christians decide that the Bible is ?just plain wrong? on homosexuality.”
More or less. I’m saying that rejecting what the Bible says about homosexuality is reasonable and is based on the same kind of thinking that leads us to reject slavery. On the other hand, I can see how many would not agree with that position, and I don’t assume that those people are bigots, even though the public opposition to homosexuality can unfortunately play into the hand of bigots.
Missourian: “Slavery was a social and legal institution. One could have argued in the early Church that Christians were not interested in a kingdom in this world and that they were not necessarily called to reform defects in the law in place, that their task was to save souls.”
Yes, there wasn’t concern for reforming institutions early on. But that’s Ok, because I see Christianity as a developmental entity, not something that was frozen from the start. We see theological, ethical, biblical, and organizational developments throughout the entire history of Christianity, even until modern times. I see the issue of homosexuals as falling in that category. Maybe not this year, maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually the church will come to a different understanding of homosexuality. Some are there now.
Note 18
Like Columbo I have “one last question.” If at least some religious authorities and the legislatures gave recognition to same sex marriage equal to the recognition given to the marriage between a single man and a single woman ….
Should gays have the same rights to divorce?
Should gays have the same rights to adopt?
Should two gay men be allowed to adopt a daughter?
Do you think that a heterosexual daughter raised by two gay men should be deprived of the counsel of a heterosexual woman on the issues of sexual maturation and relationships with men?
Same as to a hetersexual daughter raised by two gay women?
Do you think that the example set by two gay parents cause a young person raised in that household to be more likely to imitate the parents? Is there homosexuality completely a matter of genetic inheritance? All nature? No nurture?
What about Ann Heche? Wasn’t her homosexual relationship real? She is pregnant with her new husband’s baby now, I believe. Is she was homosexual then because of her immutable human nature what is she now?
Should the civil rights laws of the United States be amended to include gay as a protected class? Wouldn’t they have to be?
Should private businesses doing business with government be required to submit a diversity plan demonstrating their efforts to attract gay employees? Wouldn’t they have to be required to do so, just as they do for women and minorities?
Should the reservations of people who consider homosexuality immoral be overriden by the law against discrimination against gays? Would someone who owns and duplex and who lives in one side be required by law to rent to a gay couple. Probably, the civil rights laws would probably require it.
Should Churches which teach that homosexuality is sinful lose their tax free status since they advance a position which is in conflict with the law of the land? Doesn’t Bob Jones University go without federal aid because of its rules against interracial dating? Wouldn’t churches and church schools that teach that homosexuality is immoral lose whatever federal funding they may get and lose their tax exemptions?
Should school children be given books at age 5 and 6 which include depictions of gay couples as normal and standard just as they are given books containing depictions of heterosexual couples?
Should parents be allowed to prohibit public schools from distributing literature making references to gays to their small children? How will this be done? Will it be necessary for Christians who believe homosexuality is immoral to pull their children from public school to avoid teachers who wish to introduce gay couples to small children through literature as married couples are introduced to small children in children’s literature.
Should Muslims men living in the United States be deprived of their Koranic right to marry more than one wife? Why? We don’t live in a Christian theocracy.
Missourian writes: “One last question . . . ”
Divorce: yes
Adoption: well, adoption laws vary state by state so it would be hard to make a one-size-fits-all recommendation here.
Two gay men adopt a daughter: again, depends on the state. If you’re talking about people who would be good parents adopting a child who otherwise would be in foster care I would have an unqualified “yes” to that.
Counsel for heterosexual daughter: presumably the men would know females who could advise as necessary. The situation would not be significantly different from a widower with a young daughter.
Heterosexual daughter reared by lesbians: same thing.
[Note: even heterosexual parents vary in their ability to communicate information on the maturation process. My dad’s only advice to me about relationships was that I should never get a woman drunk just so I could have sex with her. Good advice, but not very comprehensive.]
Example of gay parents: I doubt that having gay parents would encourage homosexuality, though I imagine that children reared by gay parents would adopt a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality.
Ann Heche: heard of her. Don’t know much about her, can’t speak to her situation.
Gay as a protected class: I think they should be, but that depends on having laws to that effect. Really not related to gay marriage though.
Gay diversity plan/quotas: most protected classes are *not* the subject of diversity plans or quotas. For example, you can’t be discriminated against on the basis of an expunged juvenile record, but there is no requirement to hire a certain number of such people, nor is there a reporting requirement to that effect.
Civil rights/housing: discrimination should not be legal. This is a conflict of two rights, but the rights of people needing housing should have priority. For example, should all the grocery store owners in a town be able to refuse to sell to people they think are gay? Things related to basic survival — housing, employment, public accomodations, should be available without discrimination.
Church tax exemptions: these are safe. Churches can teach against divorce and still retain a tax exemption. Churches are also given greater lattitude in hiring practices.
Child education/gay issues: Not really a marriage issue. Schools are in a difficult position. They have to teach children from all situations yet not make parents feel that they are endorsing all situations. For example, should schools present family models that include single parents? If so, doesn’t that in effect promote single parenthood as a normal option? But if they don’t, then many children feel that their life situations are not reflected in the curriculum — like when all the books had pictures of white people.
Ages 5 & 6: see above.
Parents and gay information in school: how do Christian parents currently react to issues of divorce and single parenthood in school? Again, the same problem: how to educate all children without appearing to endorse or encourage all situations from which they come?
Moslem polygamy: Anyone is free to raise the idea of polygamy at any time. The country has considered it and rejected it even though it seemed to be the model for the Old Testament fellows. I’m not exactly sure why, but I think it has to do with the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; thus the prohibition against having more than one wife.
– – – –
Concerning the school thing —
Personally, I think there are two very different issues in operation here. Your issue, as I understand it, is that children will be indoctrinated into holding a non-Christian, unhealthy view of family life and sexuality. But at that age children are not interested in the philosophical and theological battles of adults. They just want to know that they are loved, have a stable environment, and feel accepted by others.
It really is impossible in the abstract to know what would or would not be a good family situation based on a single fact about that family. In other words, I don’t think that in a family with gay parents, that their gayness is the one massive fact about that family that overwhelms and obliterates all other facts.
The whole idea that presenting an alternative family model constitutes an endorsement or acceptance of that model is problematic. For example, what do you think of the idea of an unmarried convicted felon who
1) served a 20 year sentence for theft and escape attempts
2) subsequently committed two additional thefts
3) is currently on the run from the law
4) has custody of someone else’s young daughter
Quite the family model, huh? Schools all around the country “endorse” this family every time they mention the greatest hero in Western literature: Les Miserable’s Jean Valjean.
Note 19
Jim Holman writes:
Two gay men adopt a daughter: again, depends on the state. If you?re talking about people who would be good parents adopting a child who otherwise would be in foster care I would have an unqualified ?yes? to that.
Missourian responds: Foster care isn’t THAT BAD. Jim you have no sensitivity or appreciation of the depth and complexity of the bond of a female child to her mother. The daughter would definitely be missing out on something very, very important. At least , if she were in foster care, she would probably have an adult heterosexual female to talk to. I find your unqualified “yes” to be very sanctimonious and condescending to foster care. It really isn’t that bad in most cases. Again, you are very, very willing to write off the interests of the child for the sake of the sexual gratification of the adults.
Ann Heche: Individually she isn’t important. However, she is a big well-known example of a woman who had an extended and very public affair with another female celebrity. Everyone in Hollywood applauded her “courage.” Five years ater she marries a man. Question, if homosexuality is innate, and immutable as our blood type how do you explain Ann Heche. I explain her simply, Occam’s razor, Ann Heche is someone who chose her sexual partners. Since she is bi-sexual, pro-homosexual advocates have to create yet another class of individuals defined by their sexual behavior. Now we have exclusive gay, exlusive straight, bi-sexual, transexual and there are a few other out there. The immutable inheritability argument gets thin here. We have mapped the entire human genome. Please point me to the of the corresponding genes.
Solly Charlie, protected classes are the subject of diversity plans. Private businesses entering into contracts with the Federal government and most state government have to prove that they promote diversity as a condition to be considered as a bidder. This is not considered compulsory because the business can always decline to bid for government contracts.
As to Jean Valjean, it is called a novel. I have been directly involved in the criminal justice system and I can affirm for you that there are very few unjustly convicted prisoners. Most criminals commit ten crimes before they are convicted.
A judge would be entirely within his rights to remove that child from Valjean’s custody, because it is better to make a decision which promotes the well-being of the child than risk her injury. The child is more important, Jim.
Presenting gay couples in literature designed for young children is a complete endorsement of that practice. Literature chosen by agents of the state and presented to children convey a very powerful message of endorsement. it is simply disingenous to asset otherwise. While it is true that children are not interested in the theological and philosophical arguments of adults, it is very true that they are very interested in the identity and basic bonds to their parents. Having worked with abused children and adopted children. I can tell you that the most fundamental thing that any human being wants to know is the identity of their real parents. Everyone has the same definition of a “real parents’ it is your biological parents.
I find it hard to believe that you could be a parent or have ever been responsible for the welfare of a child. No one who has could be so cavalier about their welfare.
Jim, you just don’t think that anything should restrict freedom of sexual expression. I think you put a very high value on that.
Note 19
In a scene in Dr. Zhivago, the Red Army mows down a contingent of teenage soldiers from a military school led by an old man. Zhivago lifts the head of a dead teenager and looks at the Red Army general and asks him “Have you ever loved a woman.?”
My question to you Jim, is… have you ever loved a child? Children care very much who their mother and father are. They deeply yearn for their real father and their real mother. After you have so graciously allowed a gay couple to adopt a foster child, how will you answer the child’s questions? Where is my mother? Where is my father? No human being is indifferent to the identify of their parents. Do you really think a heterosexual child is going to be happy stuck with gay parents. Will he not feel disadvantaged compared to schoolchildren lucky enough to live with their real mother and their real father. Gay parents can never be complete set of real parents. We all know that unless we all become so very, very sophisticated that we cannot recognize the nose on our faces.
The actual verbal communication skills of parents aren’t the most important thing. It is the living example they set. You are willing to deprive heterosexual children of the daily example of their same sex parent. My mother taught me a million things about being a woman, a mother and a wife by example. Not formal verbal lessons.
I find it genuinely shocking that you have so little empathy for something that to me is the very foundation of human feeling: tenderness for children and an appreciation of the fundamental importance of their ties to their parents.
There are things more important than sexual gratification of adults, Jim. It isn’t the end of the world, if we adults don’t get our way in all things sexual. We can stagger on somehow and find other things in life to enjoy.
Missourian writes: “Again, you are very, very willing to write off the interests of the child for the sake of the sexual gratification of the adults.”
Hang on, I’m not writing off any interests for anyone. When people adopt a child out of foster care it’s not like the kid is being kidnapped. Prospective parents work with a social service agency that tries to line up a good match. There is a visitation plan, and an approval process that can take months. They’re not going to send a kid off for adoption who doesn’t like the parents, or if that did happen it would be a failure of the system.
But the monumental irony for me is this: if a gay couple proposes to adopt a child in foster care, that child is available in the first place probably because of some failure on the part of the heterosexual parents, up to and including child abuse. So heterosexual parents bring a child into the world that they can’t care for, or dont’ want, or abuse, and then when prospective gay parents propose to take the child permanently into their own home and deal with all the baggage caused by the heterosexual parents, the gay couple turn out to be the bad guys!
Missourian: “Question, if homosexuality is innate, and immutable as our blood type how do you explain Ann Heche.”
I suppose she is bisexual, which means that she is not homosexual. Thus, her actions are the actions of a bisexual, not a homosexual. There are all sorts of people in the world. I’m talking about homosexuals — people who are attracted to those of the same gender, not people who are attracted to both. Nor am I talking about heterosexual prisoners who engage in what appears to be homosexual activity but who are actually heterosexuals without female companionship.
Missourian: “Private businesses entering into contracts with the Federal government and most state government have to prove that they promote diversity as a condition to be considered as a bidder.”
It’s not going to include any detailed information on things such as marital status, expunged juvenile records, religion, and so on. I mean, how would anyone even know that someone were homosexual unless the person said something about it? As I understand it, a diversity plan deals with things such as education, hiring practices, recruitment efforts that include minority candidates, and so on. Many companies already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Missourian writes: “As to Jean Valjean, it is called a novel. . . . Presenting gay couples in literature designed for young children is a complete endorsement of that practice.”
Ok, so help me out here. If a teacher presents a fictional story of a convicted felon on the run who unofficially adopts someone else’s minor child, there’s no problem with that, and the teacher is not presumed to endorse that practice. But if the teacher presents a fictional story that includes gay parents, that constitutes an endorsement of gay parenthood? Again, think the schools are in a lose-lose situation here. If they present alternative models of families they are presumed to endorse those models. If they don’t present alternative models of families they are accused of not meeting the needs of children. Your argument against showing gay parents works just as well for not showing single-parent households. But we know that many children live in that situation.
Missourian: “I find it hard to believe that you could be a parent or have ever been responsible for the welfare of a child. No one who has could be so cavalier about their welfare.”
I had a twelve year old stepdaughter. I came into the picture about the time that she departed from the human species and became a teenager. We also had an eleven year old Mexican girl live with us for a school year. She was at an age where she didn’t have the study discipline to learn English, and her parents, with little education themselves, spoke Spanish at home. Thus she was not learning English at an appropriate rate. So she came to live with los gringos so as to improve her English. We also cared for two months for two young Mexican kids whose family lost their apartment for a while. Subsequent to all that, over several years we had five young adults from Central America live with us, none of whom spoke English when they got here, while they pursued technical education in the U.S. on a program funded by the Agency for International Development. So between kids and other young people, I’ve had experience with nine individuals. Oh, and also for six summers a young man from El Salvador lived with us and worked at a local cannery to make money for college. He came to the U.S. when he was 14 after his parents were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. So I guess that makes ten individuals. Most of these people now have either university or community college degrees, and one is currently in his fourth year of medical school. So I guess in spite of my cavalier attitude about child welfare I must have done something right.
Concerning “restricting sexual expression” — I thought we were mostly talking about gay marriage. You sure as hell don’t have to be married in order to have sexual expression, and I see marriage as being primarily about commitment and love, not about having sex.
Missourian writes: “Again, you are very, very willing to write off the interests of the child for the sake of the sexual gratification of the adults.”
Hang on, I’m not writing off any interests for anyone. When people adopt a child out of foster care it’s not like the kid is being kidnapped. Prospective parents work with a social service agency that tries to line up a good match. There is a visitation plan, and an approval process that can take months. They’re not going to send a kid off for adoption who doesn’t like the parents, or if that did happen it would be a failure of the system.
But the monumental irony for me is this: if a gay couple proposes to adopt a child in foster care, that child is available in the first place probably because of some failure on the part of the heterosexual parents, up to and including child abuse. So heterosexual parents bring a child into the world that they can’t care for, or dont’ want, or abuse, and then when prospective gay parents propose to take the child permanently into their own home and deal with all the baggage caused by the heterosexual parents, the gay couple turn out to be the bad guys!
Missourian: “Question, if homosexuality is innate, and immutable as our blood type how do you explain Ann Heche.”
I suppose she is bisexual, which means that she is not homosexual. Thus, her actions are the actions of a bisexual, not a homosexual. There are all sorts of people in the world. I’m talking about homosexuals — people who are attracted to those of the same gender, not people who are attracted to both. Nor am I talking about heterosexual prisoners who engage in what appears to be homosexual activity but who are actually heterosexuals without female companionship.
Missourian: “Private businesses entering into contracts with the Federal government and most state government have to prove that they promote diversity as a condition to be considered as a bidder.”
It’s not going to include any detailed information on things such as marital status, expunged juvenile records, religion, and so on. I mean, how would anyone even know that someone were homosexual unless the person said something about it? As I understand it, a diversity plan deals with things such as education, hiring practices, recruitment efforts that include minority candidates, and so on. Many companies already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Missourian writes: “As to Jean Valjean, it is called a novel. . . . Presenting gay couples in literature designed for young children is a complete endorsement of that practice.”
Ok, so help me out here. If a teacher presents a fictional story of a convicted felon on the run who unofficially adopts someone else’s minor child, there’s no problem with that, and the teacher is not presumed to endorse that practice. But if the teacher presents a fictional story that includes gay parents, that constitutes an endorsement of gay parenthood? Again, think the schools are in a lose-lose situation here. If they present alternative models of families they are presumed to endorse those models. If they don’t present alternative models of families they are accused of not meeting the needs of children. Your argument against showing gay parents works just as well for not showing single-parent households. But we know that many children live in that situation.
Missourian: “I find it hard to believe that you could be a parent or have ever been responsible for the welfare of a child. No one who has could be so cavalier about their welfare.”
I had a twelve year old stepdaughter. I came into the picture about the time that she departed from the human species and became a teenager. We also had an eleven year old Mexican girl live with us for a school year. She was at an age where she didn’t have the study discipline to learn English, and her parents, with little education themselves, spoke Spanish at home. Thus she was not learning English at an appropriate rate. So she came to live with los gringos so as to improve her English. We also cared for two months for two young Mexican kids whose family lost their apartment for a while. Subsequent to all that, over several years we had five young adults from Central America live with us, none of whom spoke English when they got here, while they pursued technical education in the U.S. on a program funded by the Agency for International Development. So between kids and other young people, I’ve had experience with nine individuals. Oh, and also for six summers a young man from El Salvador lived with us and worked at a local cannery to make money for college. He came to the U.S. when he was 14 after his parents were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. So I guess that makes ten individuals. Most of these people now have either university or community college degrees, and one is currently in his fourth year of medical school. So I guess in spite of my cavalier attitude about child welfare I must have done something right.
Concerning “restricting sexual expression” — I thought we were mostly talking about gay marriage. You sure don’t have to be married in order to have sexual expression, and I see marriage as being primarily about commitment and love, not about having sex.
Missourian writes: “Again, you are very, very willing to write off the interests of the child for the sake of the sexual gratification of the adults.”
Hang on, I’m not writing off any interests for anyone. When people adopt a child out of foster care it’s not like the kid is being kidnapped. Prospective parents work with a social service agency that tries to line up a good match. There is a visitation plan, and an approval process that can take months. They’re not going to send a kid off for adoption who doesn’t like the parents, or if that did happen it would be a failure of the system.
But the monumental irony for me is this: if a gay couple proposes to adopt a child in foster care, that child is available in the first place probably because of some failure on the part of the heterosexual parents, up to and including child abuse. So heterosexual parents bring a child into the world that they can’t care for, or dont’ want, or abuse, and then when prospective gay parents propose to take the child permanently into their own home and deal with all the baggage caused by the heterosexual parents, the gay couple turn out to be the bad guys!
Missourian: “Question, if homosexuality is innate, and immutable as our blood type how do you explain Ann Heche.”
I suppose she is bisexual, which means that she is not homosexual. Thus, her actions are the actions of a bisexual, not a homosexual. There are all sorts of people in the world. I’m talking about homosexuals — people who are attracted to those of the same gender, not people who are attracted to both. Nor am I talking about heterosexual prisoners who engage in what appears to be homosexual activity but who are actually heterosexuals without female companionship.
Missourian: “Private businesses entering into contracts with the Federal government and most state government have to prove that they promote diversity as a condition to be considered as a bidder.”
It’s not going to include any detailed information on things such as marital status, expunged juvenile records, religion, and so on. I mean, how would anyone even know that someone were homosexual unless the person said something about it? As I understand it, a diversity plan deals with things such as education, hiring practices, recruitment efforts that include minority candidates, and so on. Many companies already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Missourian writes: “As to Jean Valjean, it is called a novel. . . . Presenting gay couples in literature designed for young children is a complete endorsement of that practice.”
Ok, so help me out here. If a teacher presents a fictional story of a convicted felon on the run who unofficially adopts someone else’s minor child, there’s no problem with that, and the teacher is not presumed to endorse that practice. But if the teacher presents a fictional story that includes gay parents, that constitutes an endorsement of gay parenthood? Again, think the schools are in a lose-lose situation here. If they present alternative models of families they are presumed to endorse those models. If they don’t present alternative models of families they are accused of not meeting the needs of children. Your argument against showing gay parents works just as well for not showing single-parent households. But we know that many children live in that situation.
Missourian: “I find it hard to believe that you could be a parent or have ever been responsible for the welfare of a child. No one who has could be so cavalier about their welfare.”
I had a twelve year old stepdaughter. I came into the picture about the time that she departed from the human species and became a teenager. We also had an eleven year old Mexican girl live with us for a school year. She was at an age where she didn’t have the study discipline to learn English, and her parents, with little education themselves, spoke Spanish at home. Thus she was not learning English at an appropriate rate. So she came to live with los gringos so as to improve her English. We also cared for two months for two young Mexican kids whose family lost their apartment for a while. Subsequent to all that, over several years we had five young adults from Central America live with us, none of whom spoke English when they got here, while they pursued technical education in the U.S. on a program funded by the Agency for International Development. So between kids and other young people, I’ve had experience with nine individuals. Oh, and also for six summers a young man from El Salvador lived with us and worked at a local cannery to make money for college. He came to the U.S. when he was 14 after his parents were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. So I guess that makes ten individuals. Most of these people now have either university or community college degrees, and one is currently in his fourth year of medical school. So I guess in spite of my cavalier attitude about child welfare I must have done something right.
Concerning “restricting sexual expression” — I thought we were mostly talking about gay marriage. You sure as hell don’t have to be married in order to have sexual expression, and I see marriage as being primarily about commitment and love, not about having sex.
I think its a stretch to say that the scriptures approves slavery simply because it recognized slavery as a social institution that couldn’t be changed. Remember, this was before the rise of nation states when cultural change usually occured through catastrophic events, like war or earthquake. Even the legalization of Christianity was a function of empire change. Remember too that abolition in the West was a relatively recent event, late eigheenth century in England, mid nineteenth century in the US. (Slavery still exists in the non-Christian world.) Further, looking at extra-biblical Christian sources, particularly prayer and worship, there are references to pray for those who suffer in bondage, clearly a recognition that slavery imposed suffering and hardship and nothing that could be construed as approval.
How this acceptance of slavery as a cultural norm justifies a lifting of the moral prohibition against homosexuality is not made clear. For the argument to make sense, another prohibition consequently lifted should be cited, but there are none. The slavery argument is another example of the exegetical stretches pro-homosexuality advocates have cited in order to reinterpret the Pauline prohibitions, such as David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, or that the sin of Sodom was really inhospitality. It doesn’t carry any weight with serious thinkers.
Finally, children should not be subject to social experiments like homosexual adoptions. This is one area where social conservatives have to deliver a firm no to the liberals.
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times has a commentary today on this subject, entitled, “God and Sex”. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?th
The one point he makes that I do want to hightlight is the fact that if we examine the actual sayings and teaching of Jesus Christ, He is much more severe in his criticism of greed and disregard for the poor, than he is in dealing with sexual misconduct. To those who turn their backs on the poor, Christ warns that they are going to hell, no ifs, ands, or butts. (Matthew 25). The prostitute who Christ saves from stoning, by contrast, gets a mild “go and sin no more.”
So if we were to prioritize our poltical activism based on the actual words of Christ we would be consider state referendums and propositions to aid those in economic or physical distress of much greater urgency than those designed prevent gay marriage and/or civil unions.
Fr. Hans writes: “I think its a stretch to say that the scriptures approves slavery simply because it recognized slavery as a social institution that couldn’t be changed.”
I not saying that scripture approves of slavery but that it fails to condemn it, even to the point of not forbidding believers to hold slaves. One looks to the Bible in vain for a specific moral condemnation of slavery.
Fr. Hans: “How this acceptance of slavery as a cultural norm justifies a lifting of the moral prohibition against homosexuality is not made clear.”
My position is that there are many things in scripture that are culturally conditioned and not necessarily unchangeable moral truths. Slavery is one of those. I believe that homosexuality is another, especially when we’re talking about monogamous, long-term, committed relationships in which two people wish to enter into marriage.
Fr. Hans: “Finally, children should not be subject to social experiments like homosexual adoptions. This is one area where social conservatives have to deliver a firm no to the liberals.”
Same-sex couples and homosexual singles have already been involved in child-rearing and adoption, and will continue to do so with or without same-sex marriage. As of 2003 around 40 percent of adoption agencies had placed children with gay or lesbian adoptive parents. http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Adoption1.html
Even leaving sexual orientation aside, adopted children also seem to respond well to good parenting regardless of number of parents. As of 2000 the U.S. Dept. of HHS said that one-third of adoptions from foster care were to single-parent families. Studies have shown that these children do fine. Adoptions by heterosexual couples are the norm, but that doesn’t mean that other kinds of adoptions cannot be just as successful.
Note 24
Assertion: Some percentage of the human population is exclusively attracted to their own sex. This is a manifestation of their genetic inheritance, meaning there exists a gene for exclusive homosexuality. This gene for exclusive homosexuality rules out any natural or voluntary attraction to the opposite sex.
This is an oxymoron. Nature cannot select for sterility.
To fully appreciate the difficulty of this problem perform this thought experiment. Assume that the assisted reproductive technology which has been developed in the last 40 years is not available.
Case One: All sexual relations are consensual pairings.
Through genetic mutation a small class of persons is born who carry a gene which dictates that the bearer of the gene is exclusively attracted to his or her own sex. Conforming to the genetic dictate, this small group of people have sexual relations only with their own sex. There is no reproductive technology which allows them to swap eggs or sperm with normal humans. They do not reproduce. They do not pass their genes on to the next generation, they die. The gene disappears from the gene pool immediately.
The probability that any single specific genetic mutation arises through chance is infinitesimally small. Random mutations do not occur over and over again. A single random mutation may occur only once in tens of thousands of years.
Case Two: An exclusively gay female is raped by an exclusively straight or bi-sexual male and forced to reproduce.
Again, due to some hypothetical spontaneous generation of an exclusively gay gene, an exclusively gay female is born. While it is entirely possible that our hypothetically, exclusively gay female could be raped and therefore produce a child, she would not be able to produce an exclusively gay child.
Here is why.
We know that the hypothetical gene for exclusively straight sexuality, if one existed, would have to be dominant over the hypothetical gene for exclusively gay sexuality. If this were not true, 75% of the population would, over time, be exclusively gay and the race would have died out long ago. See Gregor Mendel. If you want to refine this biological argument even further, you can, because if there existed yet another gene which dictated bi-sexuality, it also would have to be dominant over exclusively gay sexuality, or again the race would have died out. There is no scenario in which a gene for exclusively gay sexuality can be dominant over a gene for any other kind of sexuality and for the race to continue. Therefore forcible rape by a straight or bi-sexual male would not have created an exclusively gay child.
Case III. Exclusively gay females consent to sex with straight or bi-sexual men for the sake of children:
This would not have occurred in very early human societies because the link between sexual relations and the birth of child was not understood.
Assuming that society had figured out the cause and effect of reproduction, the allegedly exclusively gay female could not produce exclusively gay offspring from a union with a straight or even bi-sexual male. We demonstrated that in Case Two.
Case Three: Exclusively gay male rapes or has consensual sex with an exclusively gay woman.
Don’t think we need to discuss this hypothetical case. This mating could match recessive gay genes and produce an exclusively gay child. It is almost impossible to imagine it happening frequently enough to have an impact on the population.
Even if exclusively gay men and women, overcame their revulsion, and mated randomly with the opposite sex, the percentage of exclusively gay persons in each succeeding generation would decline geometrically to the point of virtual extinction within 200 or 300 years.
Case Four: Exclusively gay males respond to social pressure to have sex with an heterosexual woman for the sake of producing children.
The father’s exclusively gay genes would have to be recessive to the dominant exclusively heterosexual or bi-sexual genes of the mother. He would not pass on his exclusively gay sexuality to his children. The children would be exclusively heterosexual or bi-sexual. Again, there is no
way to account for the sustained persistence of a genetically-dictated exclusively gay children across many generations. To the contrary, they are mathematically doomed to extinction, if they ever did occur.
Conclusion: Genetic Determination of Exclusive Homosexuality Doesn’t Hold Water
At best the genetic determinists are left with a theoretical, genetically determined form of bi-sexuality. Again, using the same reasoning, the gene for exclusively heterosexual would have to be dominant to the gene for bi-sexuality or …… we would have 66% of the population bi-sexual or homosexual. No reputable researcher has claimed that high an incidence of bi-sexuality combined with exclusive homosexuality.
What would the moral dimensions of bi-sexuality be? According to the genetic determinists, nature would permits the bi-sexual individual to find partners of either sex attractive. Well, we are dealing with choice here, are we not? If your genes are programmed in such a way that you can enjoy relations with either sex, then on any given occaision you are simply chosing a partner out of the general population. Bi-sexuals state that they can enjoy relations with either sex. If that is the case, then it does not seem harsh to restrict them to one sex with whom they concedely enjoy sex and declare the rest off limits because homosexuality is sterile and does not provide a good home for most adopted children. We declare sex with cousins off limits and no one thinks they are a victim for that. After marriage we declare sexual relations with persons other than the spouse off limits. Even if bi-sexuality was genetically determined, restricting sexual relations to one gender would still leave 3 billion potential partners. Not a hardship, I would say.
The above is a totally sexular argument against the existence of genetically dictated exclusive homosexuality. Theologically, I find the work of Dr. Robert Gagnon persuasive although I don’t claim the expertise to debate the theological issues on his level.
Jim Holman’s note 27
I have seen repeated references to “studies have shown that these children do fine.”
Can you provide a reference to these studies? I have previously cited an article called “Ten Best Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage.” I can dig that up and provide the citation again. In that article, the author challenges the assertion that “studies have shown that the children have done just fine.”
It would be most helpful if you would identify them. Who sponsored the research? Have there been longitudinal studies down? How big a population was studied? How did the researcher define “doing fine.” Did the researcher have access to the children in a private interview without the pressure of parents present?
Given that the children has some reason to be in foster care in the first place, something traumatic probably happened to them. I can’t see why it would be a good idea to put a traumatized child in a non-conventional home. The child will miss the special love of a father-figure OR miss the special love of a mother-figure AND have to adjust to the idea of homosexual parents. Even small children understand the two men sharing a bedroom is substantially different from a man and a woman sharing a bedroom. They may not understand philosophy, theology or sexuality but they understand the concept of marriage and parenthood.
Query: Since a majority of Americans are practicing or cultural Christians, wouldn’t placing a child in a gay home mean that by definition, that child will not be raised in an orthodox or traditional religious environment? Gay men or women are not going to raise children as Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholicsa or Southern Baptists. Not if they have any intellectual integrity.
You know gays always mock critics of homosexuality when those critics claim that homosexuals recruit from children, but, what is adoption? As I think I have proved there cannot be any naturally occurring, genetically mandated exclusive homosexuality. As explained eariler, nature cannot select for sterility. Given that fact, adoption would be crucial to perpetuate gay culture and gay acceptance in the next generation, at a minimum. Why shouldn’t we expect gay “parents” to encourage homosexuality and at least implicitly discourage heterosexuality. Why is this not recruitment. Children in gay homes will not be taught that homosexuality is a sin because they won’t be brought to Catholic, Baptist or Orthodox churches or conservative Jewish synagoges.
I remember the 60’s when the cultural left assured us that recreational drugs would promote self-actualization and that we youngsters should ignore the warnings of our parents about drugs because our parents were old and ignorant. Gosh, sure glad my generation accepted that advice. We came out “just fine.” Jim, apparently you think that the warnings giving by traditionalists are just silly and uninformed and a product of the past. Hope you’re right, because if not, traumatized children will have yet another trauma to cope with.
Again, it is morally wrong to err in favor of the sexual gratification of adults and the need of adults for the warmth of a family that they cannot create themselves against the interests of the child. A hand-waving “they are doing just fine” isn’t enough in this case.
Missourian writes: “I have seen repeated references to ?studies have shown that these children do fine.? Can you provide a reference to these studies?”
This was in reference to single parent adoption, not homosexual adoption. Here is a pretty good list of studies: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org
Do a search on the word ‘single’ and you’ll find a number of studies listed in their database.
Missourian writes: “Query: Since a majority of Americans are practicing or cultural Christians, wouldn?t placing a child in a gay home mean that by definition, that child will not be raised in an orthodox or traditional religious environment? Gay men or women are not going to raise children as Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists. Not if they have any intellectual integrity.”
Yes, having been rejected by those churches it is not likely that they and their children would attend them. Mission accomplished, I guess. But there will be room for them in one of the local Episcopal churches.
Missourian: “Given that fact, adoption would be crucial to perpetuate gay culture and gay acceptance in the next generation, at a minimum.”
How could that be, since adoption by gay parents is a relatively recent development?
Missourian: “Children in gay homes will not be taught that homosexuality is a sin because they won?t be brought to Catholic, Baptist or Orthodox churches or conservative Jewish synagoges.”
Yes, and for the obvious reason. Again, mission accomplished.
Missourian: “Jim, apparently you think that the warnings giving by traditionalists are just silly and uninformed and a product of the past.”
I don’t think they are silly, but I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that children are harmed by such families merely in virtue of the sexual orientation of both parents — unless you define “harm” as “not going to a conservative church” or “having the wrong view of homosexuality.”
I’ve had the same kind of conversation with fundamentalist Christians before. After they denounce people who don’t believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, I point out that a lot of modern people simply don’t believe in talking snakes and large wooden boats carrying two of every animal. My point to them is great, so you chase these people away from church. Now what? What’s Plan B? And there isn’t a Plan B. I think this is why even fundamentalist churches accept divorced people. Otherwise you just end up driving them away. And then what?
Is Gay Adoption Harmful?
Another Divorce? The gay-adoption movement has a familiar ring
Homosexual Adoption Puts Children at Risk
Children should not be used in liberal social engineering. This is another issue that will be forced through the courts, not legislative assemblies.
Note 30
Jim Holman writes:
Missourian: ?Jim, apparently you think that the warnings giving by traditionalists are just silly and uninformed and a product of the past.?
I don?t think they are silly, but I haven?t seen any compelling evidence that children are harmed by such families merely in virtue of the sexual orientation of both parents ? unless you define ?harm? as ?not going to a conservative church? or ?having the wrong view of homosexuality.?
I?ve had the same kind of conversation with fundamentalist Christians before. After they denounce people who don?t believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, I point out that a lot of modern people simply don?t believe in talking snakes and large wooden boats carrying two of every animal. My point to them is great, so you chase these people away from church. Now what? What?s Plan B? And there isn?t a Plan B. I think this is why even fundamentalist churches accept divorced people. Otherwise you just end up driving them away. And then what?
Reply to Paragraph One:
Burden of proof is everything. Your reply makes clear that, in your opinion, society should just go ahead and place traumatized children in gay homes, UNTIL someone comes up with “compelling evidence.” This is called “experimentation with human subjects.” Only in this case, the “human subjects” are traumamtized children. This happens to them because they are small, weak and don’t have money or political pull. They become pets to satisfy the personal conceits of gays.
I will examine your offered studies, but, I am willing to bet quite a bit that there are no longitudinal studies on the long-term impact on the children.
Reply to Paragraph Two:
I have often admitted that I have not studied the ancient languages of Scripture and I have not studied theology. I will leave that to the experts. I do know that the Bible consists of a wide variety of literature. I know that the naratives were reduced to writing at different times in history, in different original languages.
Here is why I know the Bible is true. For twenty years I had a law practice. During those years people who were in trouble came to my door looking for a way out of trouble. I got to know each of my clients very well. I had an excellent vantage point to study how trouble comes into our lives. After reading the Bible as a layperson, more the New Testament than the Old, I found that the teachings were DEAD ON TRUE. Time after time after time, the Biblical teachings of the New Testament explained the twists and turns in people’s lives. Someone said that the Bible is an instruction manual that you need to understand how the world works. Since I began my study of Biblical teachings I have “seen” the operation of the moral laws contained therein. I think Newton said “the laws of nature do not have to be enforced, they just hold true.” I read somewhere that Augustine that that moral principles were built into the fabric of the Universe and that every action had an impact based on its moral quality.
As a “fundamentalist Christian” with a degree in economicsa, law and electrical engineering, I am basically a simpleton, but, my years in my years on this planet I have never found the advice of the cultural Left to be good. Drugs were a bad idea. Cultural, Marxist oriented feminism doesn’t work. Former feminists are finding out that the work world doesn’t hug you back. Women who have undergone abortions are living with bitter, life long grief and regret. So given the choice of belonging to the Fundamentalist Christian crowd that you so heartily disdain and belonging to the allegedly sophisticated and enlightened cultural Left, I will stay with the fundamentalist Christians.
Note 31
Prediction. St. Paul will outlast his critics. He already has.
I just listened to what I consider to be an amusing lecture on the life of St. Paul. The lecturer was backed by full academic credentials in history and theology from notable academic societies. The lecturer itemized what various thinks have objected to in the writings of St. Paul. He noted one line of attack arising from the 20th Century. Some scholars had used Freudian and Jungian analysis to conclude that the personality displayed by St. Paul in his writings provided evidence of mental instability.
I absolutely laughed until I cried. Freud and Jung have had their day. Both men originally advanced their ideas as a form of science. Freud is almost totally discredited as representing any form of bona fide science. Science is here defined as consisting of testable hypotheses.
Allow me a little time to dig in my library and I will get you the name of the lecturer and his background.
So time has past, the wheel has turned, academia’s pet gurus and quasi-philosophers have faded in importance and have become something that is only of historical importance. Still St. Paul is there.
As I have said before, the fads and enthusiams of the Cultural Left come and go. Their advice has always been bad. This is just another case.
Note 33
What I find amusing is that the Cultural Left mocks the stories of the Bible as superstitution, yet, you will find them gazing into their crystals, living under their pyraminds and paying Depak Chopra to dish up a stew of religious ideas from various cultures. There are few people more credulous than the cultural Left.
They reject the religion that brought us the Sistine Chapel, Chartres and Mozart’s Requiem Mass… but oh….. those Druid chants and Egyptian mummies!!! Kewl!!
Concerning the articles on gay adoption listed by Fr. Hans —
The problem with these articles is that their conclusions are not based on sound peer-reviewed research.
The first article, “Is Gay Adoption Harmful,” is an interview of a fellow who is a hired gun for conservative organizations. On the basis of methodological problems, the article criticizes the studies that have been done on gay parenting. The reason that he can criticize these studies is that, unlike his book, they have in fact appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals. So we have a non-peer-reviewed book written by a hired gun vs. actual research.
When you look at research, especially research in the social sciences, you find that there are problems and great limitations with virtually every study. For example, when my wife was in her graduate nursing program, one class consisted of nothing but doing critiques of existing research. When you find problems with a research study or even a body of research you don’t dismiss the research; you do more research. When you find problems with the research on how to assess pain in non-communicative patients suffering from dementia, you don’t throw away all the tools based on that research; you do more research.
Another problem with these articles is that, having dismissed research favorable to gay parenting, the authors criticize gay parenting based on their own speculation. Take, for example, this passage from Robert Lerner:
” . . . many would say that if children raised in these families were more likely to grow up gay or lesbian, that this in itself would be harmful. Others might not agree, but I would be surprised if most Americans would be neutral at the prospect of their own children becoming gay or lesbian.”
So in place of acutal research we have “many would say.” The “many” are not identified nor is it clear on what basis the “many” would believe that. Then in the next sentence the speculations of the “many” become reality: “I would be surprised if most Americans would be neutral at the prospect of their own children becoming gay or lesbian.”
Lerner continues: “There is some evidence that growing up with homosexual parents increases the likelihood of sexual promiscuity, experimentation, and homosexual sexual experience. If sexual preference is at least in part learned, this is to be expected.”
But the “some evidence” is not identified. Then he moves to “if sexual preference is at least in part learned . . .” — again without citing any research. His next sentence begins with “I would speculate that . . . .”
His next point is interesting: “Next, there is the evidence on the relative instability of same-sex relationships with its evident effects on the stability of children’s relationships.” Of course, this is in the context of marriage being denied to homosexuals, and it also does not address instability in heterosexual relationships — the very factor that makes children available for adoption in the first place.
He then discusses the various health problems (described in research literature) in the heterosexual community and then moves to “It is not too large a stretch to conclude . . . .”
But the article keeps Lerner’s most astonishing statement for the last: “A second alternative that has been recently suggested by political scientist James Q. Wilson is to revivify residential-care centers, or orphanages, as potential substitute parents. Wilson argues that orphanages are reasonable alternative to single parenthood and I believe that this may be a feasible alternative here also.”
So here we leave the realm of research completely, substituting instead an alternative to adoption that is actually contrary to research findings. Here’s what North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) has to say about the research related to orphanages:
“Pediatricians, public health experts, and child psychiatrists from Boston University School of Medicine and Harvard University studied the orphanage issue and found that young children are uniquely vulnerable to the medical and psychosocial hazards of institutional care. In the short-term, young children risk contracting serious illnesses and developing language impairments. In the long-term, children who spent time in institutional care stand a greater chance of becoming psychologically impaired and economically unproductive adults (Frank et al., 1996).
“Children denied the opportunity to form a consistent relationship with a caregiver in their childhood years, such as institutionalized children, are at serious risk for developmental problems and long-term personality disorders (Sroufe, 1991).
“Close examination reveals that even good institutions harm young children, leave teens ill-prepared for the outside world, and cost over three times more than a permanent, loving, adoptive family (Ford & Kroll, 1995).
“On average, institutionalized children were cared for by more than 10 different caregivers per year (Hodges & Tizard, 1978).
“Research documents high staff turnover, poor staff training, and few opportunities for professional advancement among institutional child care staff (Cohen, 1986).
“Children who were adopted and, to a somewhat lesser extent, former foster care children experienced more intimate, consistent, caring, and closer attachments to their caregivers compared to those who grew up in residential establishments. Children who grew up in residential facilities seemed to experience few opportunities for closeness, individual caring, and continuity in care. Only one in every eight residentially-reared children expressed any real enthusiasm for the quality of care and attachments they experienced with house parents (Triseliotis & Russell, 1984).
http://library.adoption.com/Counseling/Build-Families-Not-Orphanages/article/3676/1.html
Lerner recommends that we consider orphanages while ignoring research to the contrary, some of which has been available for 20 years.
The methodology goes like this: where peer-reviewed research opposes your position, discredit the research or simply ignore it. Where peer-reviewed research supports your position, accept the research. Where there is no research, use speculation and conjecture. And no matter what, don’t submit your own work to peer-reviewed journals. On the contrary, make sure that you stay within the safe greenhouse confines of right-wing media.
The second article you cite is basically an ad for Lerner’s book.
The third article mentions the “American Academy of Pediatrics’ endorsement of homosexual adoptions” but dismisses that without addressing any reasons for the endorsement. The author mentions exactly zero identifiable research studies on gay parenting. Lacking any details whatsoever all we get is ” . . . new study by two University of Southern California sociologists . . .” Ok, like, what study? What sociologists? Where did the study appear? Then we get ” . . . A major Australian newspaper reported Feb. 4th regarding a British sociologist’s review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting.” What newspaper? (Oh, a “major” newspaper . . . that one.) What sociologist? Was his review published? I mean, what’s going on here? The author can’t be bothered to include names and journal citations? Forget research, this guy needs to retake Writing 101.
Missourian writes: “What I find amusing is that the Cultural Left mocks the stories of the Bible as superstitution, yet, you will find them gazing into their crystals, living under their pyraminds and paying Depak Chopra to dish up a stew of religious ideas from various cultures. There are few people more credulous than the cultural Left.”
You’re lumping things together that don’t belong together. I don’t do crystals or pyramids. I don’t have any Depak Chopra books. I don’t even sit at the feet of Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj (aka Franklin Jones) and gaze lovingly into his eyes.
In other words, I don’t think that the spiritual life is primarily a choice between superstitions. I don’t reject the Bible or the possiblity of the miraculous, but I do recognize the Bible’s limitations and try to understand the various writings of the Bible in terms of the kind of literature that they are. In short, I exist in what the Bush administration refers to as the “reality community,” outside of the reach either of crystals or talking snakes.
Missourian: “Prediction. St. Paul will outlast his critics. He already has.”
In one sense he outlasts his critics, but in some cases even Christians ignore him. How many Christians take his advice not to marry?
Missourian: “So given the choice of belonging to the Fundamentalist Christian crowd that you so heartily disdain and belonging to the allegedly sophisticated and enlightened cultural Left, I will stay with the fundamentalist Christians.”
Actually, if you’re Orthodox I doubt very much that you’re a “fundamentalist” Christian, as that term is typically used. I would call you a conservative Christian in a traditional church. Fundamentalists have no use for church tradition, relying instead on what is a fairly modern (and in my view, unsupportable) view of the Bible.
Note 35
Jim you identified me as a fundamentalist Christian. I just took the label and ran with it. I am not sure where I fall theologically. I come to my religion as a result of two things: first: I was lucky enough to be raised by devout parents; second, my life experience has confirmed that the teachings of the New Testament are true. Among my favorite sayings, I think from the book of John is “You can do nothing without me.” I would say that I have “tasted and found that the Lord is good.” I am an experiential Christian. Once the primary position of Christ is acknowleged everything falls into place. I am not claiming that everything is easy, but, I have discovered, what is to me, a very satisfying sense of intellectual completeness and insight into the human condition.
I will concede that you, individually, have not propounded in favor of crystals on this page. However, you had almost uniformly adopted the position of the Cultural Left and I think it is proper to make reference to them. I think that we need to look and see where the move towards the normalization and legitimization of homosexuality comes from. Who is speaking? We have the right to evaluate their wisdom by looking at things that they advocated in the past.
St. Paul’s position in the world is not lessened by the fact that some people ignore him. (I don’t think anyone who ignores St. Paul can fairly be called a Christian.) As to indifference, God’s servants have been greeted with indifference before and frequently responses far more harsh than indifference.
I am willing to wager nearly anything that 500 years from now, St. Paul will still be the topic of intense intellectual interest and Bertrand Russell will be a footnote in the general history of the world.
Note 35
I would hasten to note that I don’t have answers for every theological question, so there is no point in peppering me with them. God has demonstrated his faithfulness to me in no uncertain terms over many decades. This unmerited and priceless gift from Him is astounding. My biggest cause for worry is that I will not meet the test of “to whom much is given, much is required.”
To Jim Holman:
Are you willing to concede that there could be no such thing as a gene which dictates that the bearer will be exclusively attracted to a member of his or her own sex?
Do you understand why such as gene, even if it occurred as a spontaneous mutation, could never be dominant over a gene for bi-sexuality or exclusive heterosexuality? That would produce a strong numerical majority (either 75% or 66%) of exclusively gay persons. Regardless of occaisional anomalies, a species cannot sustain a huge majority of persons who are not sexually attracted to their own sex without extinction in less than 5 or 6 generations.
Given that any such gene must be recessive when matched with bi-sexuality or exclusive heterosexuality. Given that that it is extremely unlikely that the recessive gene carried by an exclusively gay man would meet up with a recessive gene carried by an exclusively gay woman… the exclusively gay gene would be passed on so rarely that it would be extinguished in a couple of generations.
So, we may not have a completely clear answer to the reasons some people feel attracted only to their own sex, but, it sure as heck ain’t genetics.
Comments welcome.
Note to Jim Holman
As to how I interpret the Bible. Yes, I do recognize that the Psalms are a different type of literature than… say the Book of Mark. I understand that the Epistles are a different kind of literature than the letters of St. Paul.
I would remark that there is a fair measure of intellectual condescension going on your comments. Persons of outstanding intellect have been champions of the faith. Pascal is one of my personal favorites as I use his mathematical discoveries in my work. He was a mathematical genius of profound insight and a devout Christian who did not disdain the Bible as a collection of fables. Applied mathematicians, physicists and electrical engineers are constantly finding new and powerful uses for the mathematical theories Pascal developed long ago.
Teachings regarding human sexuality are found in many places of the Bible. Again, I can only refer you to Robert Gagnon for a complete treatment. Both in Genesis and in the New Testament, the Bible describes male and female as complimentary parts of a whole. Rpbert Gagnon has produced a masterful and scholarly refutation of the claim that St. Paul’s passage reporting God’s judgment on homosexuality referred to all forms of homosexuality, not simply prostituted sex or careless and casual and sex… St. Paul knew exactly what he was referring to. While I have not attended a debate between Dr. Gagnon and theological proponents of a revisionist reading of Romans, the reports I have heard confirm that Dr. Gagnon prevails in an open debate.
Personal anecdoctal experience is not really dispositive but after having lived with a husband for ten years, I can tell you that men and woman have different psychologies, different emotional make-ups. Complimentariness is a wonderful thing however as I frequently find that my husband can be very strong and capable in situations that simply make me nutz … and I can frequently step up and take charge in some situations that my husband finds exasperating. Good to have two horses in the yoke.
Note to Jim
I think is is more important to you to bend the Church’s teaching on sexuality to legitimize homosexuality than it is to build the Church, serve Christ and save souls.
I think it is more important for you to afford gays the comfort of children they cannot produce themselves, even if those children have to be chosen from the class of children who are already victims of abuse or tragedy. It is more important that gays have the comfort of the companionship of children than those children are set on the path to a healthy and happy marriage relationship in the future.
It profits nothing to gather large numbers of people into a physical church if the soul-saving teaching of Christ is no longer heard there.
Missourian writes: “Are you willing to concede that there could be no such thing as a gene which dictates that the bearer will be exclusively attracted to a member of his or her own sex? ”
Sure, I don’t have a problem with that. There could be a combination of genetic factors, or there could be developmental factors. No one really knows what the cause is, but homosexual orientation always seems to show up in a certain small percentage of the population does not appear to be a choice.
Missourian: “I would remark that there is a fair measure of intellectual condescension going on your comments. Persons of outstanding intellect have been champions of the faith. Pascal is one of my personal favorites as I use his mathematical discoveries in my work. He was a mathematical genius of profound insight and a devout Christian who did not disdain the Bible as a collection of fables.”
Any time I point the gun at fundamentalists I also point the gun at myself, since I was a fundamentalist for ten years. Fundamentalism is not caused by a lack of intellect, but, in my opinion, originates in a psychological need for certainty combined with a certain way of understanding texts and handling contrary evidence. Fundamentalism is not even a Christian phenomenon but is found across many religions. You even see fundamentalist political thinking. Many people become fundamentalists when young; most fundamentalist conversions happen at a young age. I don’t want to say that fundamentalists are immature, but many people who leave fundamentalism describe the process of growing away from fundamentalism as a kind of maturation.
Fundamentalists at first appear to have the same beliefs as Christians in centuries past, but the *way* that fundamentalists believe is very different from earlier believers. For example, hundreds of years ago there simply was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the book of Genesis. There was no scientific evidence to the contrary. Thus it made perfect sense for someone to believe that the world was only a few thousand years old, there being no viable alternative explanations.
Today however, fundamentalists have to reject a massive amount of scientific evidence in order to believe that the accounts in Genesis are historically accurate. A fundamentalist may have beliefs that are similar to the beliefs that earlier Christians held, but he or she holds those beliefs under entirely different conditions.
Missourian: “I think is is more important to you to bend the Church?s teaching on sexuality to legitimize homosexuality than it is to build the Church, serve Christ and save souls.”
I have no goal other than understanding. If the best available evidence supports a teaching of the church, that’s great. If not, that’s the way it is. I suspect that the church will survive my skepticism.
Homosexuality per se is not a big personal issue for me. I’m not homosexual. I do know some homosexuals, but the ones I know aren’t interested either in going to church or adopting children. Nonetheless, they are the recipients of frequent public denigration by the religious right, and the few protections afforded to them are always in danger of being taken away in the name of God. And that is an issue for me.
The way the church treats homosexuals is interesting. The church perceives homosexuality as this huge defect, though homosexuals come to accept their orientation as simply the way they are. It’s like some group having a continual debate — in the name of “love” — over whether you were born ugly or became ugly later, or chose to be ugly. If you don’t think you’re ugly in the first place, such speculations are at first irritating, and eventually irrelevant. Inasmuch as the church rejects the reality of homosexual orientation it becomes irrelevant to homosexuals and thus diminishes its own influence.
Peer review of the advisibility of gay adoptions would be of limited, if any, usefulness since no data of any value will exist until one generation has reached adulthood. Support for gay adoptions are not based on hard data but on attitudes and ideas about what constitutes a civil right. Children should not be tools in social experimentation. It was tried with divorce and single motherhood and the toll it takes, particularly on boys, was not realized until too late. Those championing adoption by gays will most likely sing a different tune fifteen years down the road.
Missourian, much has been written about the pathology of homosexuality. NARTH is a good place to start.
Note 42
Jim Holman writes”
Missourian writes: ?Are you willing to concede that there could be no such thing as a gene which dictates that the bearer will be exclusively attracted to a member of his or her own sex? ?
Sure, I don?t have a problem with that. There could be a combination of genetic factors, or there could be developmental factors. No one really knows what the cause is, but homosexual orientation always seems to show up in a certain small percentage of the population does not appear to be a choice.
Jim, you have departed from logic and science at this point. Any characterisitic which is classified as “genetic” must have a gene associated with it.
If we define “exclusively gay” as someone who experiences no sexual attraction for the opposite sex and experiences sexual attraction only for his or her own sex, that is a discrete and distinct group. Using this definition there is no “blending” or combining going on here. The trait in question is “attraction to the member of one’s own sex.” Any gene which causes a member of the species to be “exclusively gay” sets in motion a force which does one of two things: either the gene is extinguished as it is either not passed on to the next generation or it declines geometrically with each generation to the point of extinction; or the proliferation of exclusively gay members of the species causes the species to be come extinct.
Culture of death is an apt phrase.
If a person is even slightly attracted to the other sex, then, he or she no longer belong to the group of “exclusively gay.” Even a slight attraction to the opposite sex promotes reproduction in a way that “exclusively gay” does not. Gene Robinson is a bi-sexual who prefers his male loverto his lawfully wedded wife. He managed to generate enough attraction to his lawful wife to father a child. He just enjoys his current love more.
If someone believes that they are exclusively gay, I will take their word for it, however, science demonstrates that this state of being,…. attraction limited to only one’s own sex is not genetically determined or compelled. It must be the result of the environment in which the person was raised or some sequence of events in his or her life. It just ain’t genetic.
The morality of homosexuality is not a matter of evidence. It is a matter of theology and philosophy. Ever reasonably sane adult, whether they describe themselves as gay or not, has the power to decide whether they will enter into any single sexual act. Humans can go without sexual relations for very long periods of time, their entire lives if necessary. It may be psychologically taxing, but, sex is not a physically necesary thing. Our culture is notable in its current deification of sexual gratification. Many cultures have placed other values in life ahead of sexual gratification. It can be maintained that sexual gratification, standing alone and distinguished from committed love, is a rather low level function. If it is given too much emphasis, society can be weakened and become adolescent and unable to defer gratification for the greater good. More
focused and self-disciplined societies will overtake the immature and self-indulgent societies.
Science can answer, and frankly, already has answered the question of whether thecondition described as exclusive homosexuality is caused by the operation of a gene, or whether it is genetic. We know the answer to that, it is not.
People who support the normalization of homosexuality would like to be able to argue that the condition of being exclusively gay is inbred and caused by genetic factors much as having blue eyes is caused by our genetic inheritance.
As to fundamentalism, I don’t really have a well-defined opinion on that topic. You referred to me as a fundametalist and I chose not to fight the label for the point of our discussion.
Fr. Hans writes: “Peer review of the advisibility of gay adoptions would be of limited, if any, usefulness since no data of any value will exist until one generation has reached adulthood. . . . Children should not be tools in social experimentation.”
Children are in social experiments all the time. Keeping them in orphanages is a social experiment. Maintaining them indefinetly in foster care is a social experiment. Permitting overseas adoptions is a social experiment.
Missourian writes: “Jim, you have departed from logic and science at this point. Any characterisitic which is classified as ?genetic? must have a gene associated with it.”
Not all genetic traits have the same penetrance. If homosexuality has a genetic cause then yes, there is a gene associated with homosexuality. But you could have the gene and not be homosexual. There are many characteristics in which the gene is present but the characteristic is not expressed in the individual.
Thus, as I mentioned, there may not be a gene that “dictates” (your term) homosexuality, even if homosexuality is a genetic characteristic.
Missourian:
“Every reasonably sane adult, whether they describe themselves as gay or not, has the power to decide whether they will enter into any single sexual act. Humans can go without sexual relations for very long periods of time, their entire lives if necessary. It may be psychologically taxing, but, sex is not a physically necesary thing.”
There are all sorts of things that are not physically necessary to maintain life. But were talking about humans, not machines. For example, you have hundreds of millions of Christians around the world who believe that we are living in the end times and that Jesus could come at any moment. There is the advice of St. Paul that it is better for Christians not to marry. There is the example of Jesus, who was not married. So you have all of these Christians who have a high degree of religious motivation and specific teachings and examples promoting a non-married existence. But how many of them actually willingly remain unmarried? Extremely few. The Christians I know who have not been married typically are not because of some kind of problem because of social problems. In spite of the negative things in the Bible about divorce and remarriage, most Christians I know who are divorced eventually remarry.
So you’re talking about expecting an entire class of people to have lives that are more controlled and in effect more saintly than even the Christians themselves, whether or not they are Christians.
Children should be the subject of gay couples playing mom and dad? The agenda here is the sanctioning of homosexual relationships, not the welfare of children. If this isn’t social experimentation, then the phrase has no meaning.
NOte 45
Missourian writes: ?Jim, you have departed from logic and science at this point. Any characterisitic which is classified as ?genetic? must have a gene associated with it.?
Not all genetic traits have the same penetrance. If homosexuality has a genetic cause then yes, there is a gene associated with homosexuality. But you could have the gene and not be homosexual. There are many characteristics in which the gene is present but the characteristic is not expressed in the individual.
Jim, this is “nonsense on stilts.” I have already addressed and accounted for the situation in which a recessive gene for exclusive gay could theoretically be passed on to the next generation but that gene would be suppressed by the dominant heter- or bi-sexual gene. I will review one more time the logic of the case.
Why do people discuss the alleged possibility of a biological cause of homosexuality? Because it bears on moral responsibility and it bears on society’s response to homosexual behavior.
What trait are we looking at? The trait is “the state of being exclusively sexually attracted to a person of one’s own sex.” Although there may be persons who are sexually attracted to both sexes, the important category here is “exclusive homosexual attraction.” Everyone else can be classified as persons who are capable of being attracted to the opposite sex, if not exclusively, at least on one occaision or another. This logical distinction is crucial to the correct scientific analysis, because short of physical sterility, the trait of being soley attracted to one’s own sex has the greatest impact on reproduction. Exclusive homosexual attraction greatly decreases the odds of reproduction as compared to bi-sexuality or exclusive heterosexuality.
If a trait is caused by a gene, then that gene must be passed on to the next generation if that trait is to continue appearing in the population. Again, exclusive homosexuality would be a trait which would severely depress the probability that the gene which alledgedly causes the trait would be passed on to the next generation.
Jim states, that there are many characteristics in which the gene is present but not expressed.
That is correct, however, Nature must resolve conflicting genetic inheritances, this is done through the ranking: some traits are dominant to others. The key trait is “exclusive homosexuslity,” an individual who retains at least some semblance or possibility of attraction to the opposite sex is a candidate for non-coerced, voluntary reproduction, a person who is “exclusively gay” is not a candidate for non-coerced, voluntary reproduction. It is theoretically possible that a recessive gene for exclusive homosexuality is passed on but is suppressed by the dominant gene for heterosexuality. In that case, the individual would think of himself as heterosexual and behave that way. Homosexuality would only be esprexxed when two recessive genes met up. However, this is where the gene for “exclusive homosexuality” starts on the road to oblivion. Exclusively gay individuals are highly unlikely to engage in non-coerced reproduction. The odds of this gene being passed on decrease to a very low level. After the exclusively gay individual dies the stock of exclusively gay genes decreases in the population.
As I have discussed and explained, and which has not been refuted, a gene which causes the trait of “exclusive homosexuality” must be recessive. Mendel’s law makes clear that if it were dominant over bi-sexuality or heterosexuality, gays would quickly become a very large percentage of the population. We know that has not happened. Assuming for the sake of argument that the exclusive gay gene was dominant, such a large percentage of the population would be exclusively gay that reproduction would be suppressed to a point below replacement. The species dies out.
This is a very long way of demonstrating something obvious. Despite the fact that some people who believe that they are exclusively gay may, from time to time, be coerced into reproduction, their uncoerced and voluntary sexual behavior is sterile.
Nothing will change that. I have discussed cases in which an exclusively gay woman is raped, she will not have an exclusively gay child. The same holds true for an exclusively gay man who somehow performs the oxymoronic act of having sex with a woman. The resulting offspring will not be exclusively gay. It will take the matching of two exclusively gay genes to produce an exclusively gay child. The exclusively gay child will have a very low probability of passing his genes on to the next generation, the exclusively heterosexual child will have more than a 50% chance of passing those genes on. Mathematically, the exclusively gay gene must decrease in incidence in the population until it is entirely eradicated.
I think that this discussion is worth going through in some detail. There exists a very strong secular case against formal recognition and social honoring of homosexuality. Nature does not and nature cannot select for sterility. Sterile creatures do not pass on their traits, sterile species die. This entire discussion is simply an elaboration of the simple trusim that a genetic trait, if it existed, which predisposes towards sterility, by definition, will be extinguished after a rather small number of generations.
Many tolerant traditionalists, who are willing to allow personal freedom to adult self-identified gays, become exasperated that there are those who actually want society to HONOR homosexuality as an institution in our laws, tax codes and educational system. I don’t want to jail masturbators, I don’t want to harass masturbsators or deny them civil rights, but, I don’t want to honor masturbation
and equate it with the union of a committed man and woman who have joined together in the hope that new life will be created. I suppose you could say that people who call themselves gay are really nothing more than another class of masturbators.
Nature doesn’t honor homosexuality, nature doesn’t reward sterility. Human beings have gender and that gender is part of a scheme to perpetuate life. Gays have removed themselves from that scheme to perpetuate life. So be it. Just don’t ask me to support or honor the practice.