Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Did God Create Them -- Male and Female and Gay?
Science is stealing up on America's religious fundamentalists, causing much alarm. Consider the dilemma of the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and a leading figure in the Southern Baptist firmament.Writing in his blog this month, Mohler acknowledged that ''the direction of the research'' increasingly points to the possibility that a ''biological basis for sexual orientation exists.'' Should sexuality be determined in utero, Mohler continued, that still wouldn't justify abortion or genetic engineering.
Nonetheless, as Mohler noted in a later blog post, his admission that the data suggest that homosexuality may be as genetically determined as hair color produced a torrent of irate e-mail from his fellow evangelical Christians. Up to now, the preferred theory among Christian conservatives has been that homosexuality is behaviorally induced and thus can be unlearned. That gave added moral weight to the biblical proscriptions of gay and lesbian sex and to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality as a sin -- though for those who believe in biblical inerrancy, no added moral weight was necessary.
But once you recognize homosexuality as a genetic reality, it does create a theological dilemma for the Mohlers among us, for it means that God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin.
Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind. That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person -- let's assume fidelity and the desire for church sanctification in both cases -- and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved. Indeed, it means that a gay person's duty is to suppress his God-given instincts while a straight person's duty is to fulfill his.
Mohler's deity, in short, is the God of Double Standards: a God who enforces the norms and fears of a world before science, a God profoundly ignorant of or resistant to the arc of American history, which is the struggle to expand the scope of the word men in our founding declaration that ''all men are created equal.'' This is a God who in earlier times was invoked to defend segregation and, before that, slavery.
This is a God whom vast numbers of self-professed believers (not to mention its nonbelievers, such as I) neither heed nor like very much, particularly the young, who in growing numbers support gay marriage and certainly don't consider gay coupling any more sinful than they do straight coupling. That said, this God still commands millions of followers, among them Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Old Time Religion, who recently declared homosexuality immoral in an interview with The Chicago Tribune.
Indeed, this God commands so many followers that the initial tendency of presidential candidates who know better was to duck when they were asked last week about the morality of gay sex. Sen. Hillary Clinton, when first asked if homosexuality was immoral, answered that it was for ''others to conclude,'' before righting herself to say that she didn't think being gay was immoral. Sen. Barack Obama, according to Newsweek, avoided a direct answer three times before coming to his senses and disagreeing with Pace. The spokesperson for Sen. John ''Straight-Talk Express'' McCain said that ''the senator thinks such questions are a matter of conscience and faith for people to decide for themselves.'' Such political and moral contortions are hardly confined to presidential candidates.
In Utah, a new law requires school principals to police student organizations to ensure that there's no discussion of ''human sexuality'' (though experts believe the topic may still come up among teen-age students). Lest it seem discriminatory, the statute applies to every student group under the sun, but it is entirely a reaction to the formation of gay-straight clubs at Utah high schools.
Ancient phobias
There is, however, no ban as yet on high school biology teachers discussing the biological basis of homosexuality, and as the data confirming this thesis continue to mount, that could confront even those of Pace's persuasion with Mohler's conundrum: how to reconcile a God who creates homosexuals with a God who condemns practicing homosexuals to hell? A mysterious God may be well and good, but a capricious or contradictory God can inspire so much doubt that He threatens the credibility of the entire religious enterprise.
After all, there are few American believers who don't profess at least some faith as well in the verities of proven science and the rightness of our national credo's commitment to human equality. By insisting that God is a spiteful homo-hater, His followers saddle Him with ancient phobias and condemn Him to the backwaters of American moral life.
Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and The L.A. Weekly. His website - www.haroldmeyerson.com
© 2007 Miami Herald Media Company
17 Comments so far
Show AllLOL, God did not create them, male female or gay, in between or sideways.
In my long life I have known closely a few people we now call "gay" and I can tell you it was not a "choice" on their part. They were the way they were because that is the way they were.
It would make as much sense to say that I "chose" to go bald at forty.
Those who speak of "God's" will and the infallibility of the Bible or any other scripture are hustlers -- all of these texts are human creations.
The manifest universe was not "created", in the sense of Some Body or Thing outside of it. Such thought belittles the magnificence of the Reality in which we exist. All the "revealed" religions, at best, are pale approximations of a thought so heavy that it fell into space.
Sexuality is very nuanced and definitely not black and white. Even amongst heterosexuals it is this way. Look at the different standards for attraction. I had a friend who was only interested in very large women (obese). I myself, since I first noticed girls as different in a wonderful way, was attracted to woman with very dark skin. I did not choose this, it was not conscious, and it certainly caused problems with my southern white parents.
Sexuality is as different as every person is different and very little of it is choice. You do not even have to be talking about gay vs straight to understand that fact.
General Peter Pace, the top US military officer, recently said, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral..."
Human judgements of morality have led to many poor decisions throughout history. Burning women at the stake was the "moral" thing to do. Keeping slaves was often considered the "moral" thing to do. I'm sure the Nazis thought they were upholding their "patriotic" and "moral" duty as they slaughtered millions of Jews.
The question is who defines what morality is. Humans have many ways of determining morality. It comes from tradition, religion, culture, historical events, etc... Sometimes morality is determined based on false information or misunderstandings. Galileo was ruled to be immoral when he argued that the Earth was not the center of the universe. He was punished for his immorality by the leaders of his time.
In the case of homosexuality, General Pace argues that he knows what is moral and immoral. He has ruled that homosexuality is an immoral act.
Where does his judgement come from? He may be making his judgement based on his background or maybe his religion or maybe from his personal experiences. I have no idea if he thinks his God is supportive of his decision.
I would not claim to speak for God, nor would I claim to know the intentions of God. I would, however, argue that religious judgements against homosexuality are more human than divine.
Most people consider "God" to be the creator of all living things. If this is true, we might want to ask ourselves if animals have the ability to be immoral and if God is immoral for creating animals that are homosexual.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Homosexual behavior does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
I don't think these animals are choosing to be homosexual. I also don't think these animals are immoral.
There are other ways to argue for and against the "morality" of homosexuality, but I have always considered the example of animal homosexuality as being convincing. Human judgements of homosexuality being immoral is full of cultural bias, misunderstandings, and the usual lashing out at things that are different from what we are used to.
The lesson in this story is that General Pace is making decisions based on his own view of morality. In addition to making public judgements about homosexuality, he also is ordering troops to kill people he considers to be evil. If he is wrong about the morality of homosexuality, should we trust him with deciding who to kill? Should we agree with him that the best strategy is to put millions of people out of work and then kill them when they fight against the decisions that have led to the disintegration of their country?
To anyone who says that homosexuality is a choice, I say, tell us about the day you chose to be straight.
I agree with most of what has been said above, except the black and white notion that homosexuality is not chosen.
If humans possess the power to go against the divine will of the universe (nature/God), which is to say we have freewill, then certainly some homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
I once met a lesbian who told me bluntly, "It was 100% my conscious decision. Boys used to get on my nerves more than my girlfriends, so I quit the boys."
Also, when I used to work in the prison system, I noticed a huge difference between male and female expression of homosexuality especially with the short-term prisoners.
Basically, very few male prisoners would engage willfully in homosexual acts, let alone admit it. They were always projecting a "tough guy" front that served to ward off aggression from other males. Social mammals that have Alpha males exhibit this same behavior. Alpha males don't normally engage in homosexual acts.
The female prisoners were openly experimenting with homosexuality to an alarming extent in the prison where I worked. Those who chose not to try it remained open minded about the others. Many of the women engaged in this behavior said they had never had a homosexual experience before. They would even suggest, "I'm not gay (lesbian), but since I'm locked up in here for a year I might as well try it."
Humans are pretty darn complex. I liked the way Mother Theresa dodged a crew of pesky "Christian" reporters one time during an interview. They kept trying to get her to commit to the position that homosexuality is a sin based on scriptures. She tried to avoid making such a judgement, until she had finally had enough of their harrassment. She scolded them by saying, "Look! A homosexual is first and foremost a human being who deserves our love and compassion just as much as any human being."
Love and compassion are the bottom line, whether or not a gay gene is discovered or not. I would not hold my breath waiting for anything conclusive in the debate that argues "God made people gay."
Andrew Herman
yeah, and then there's the different species that switch back and forth between male and female - and the reptilian 'choice' made by variations in temperature... gets muddier the more you look into this issue... which the US government DID during WWII when they needed wool and so many rams were - yup - 'gay' - ha! Was that study done in Idaho? Which trimester controls testosterone and thus decides... what happens in same-sex social groups such as 'dog soldiers' (mustangs)? Whadda ya think of a god that makes so many mistakes - and keeps right
on making them?
armybrat...you have me laughing out loud...thanks
and rjhuntington..right on
i've known many gays in my life..some well enough to ask and every one i did ask answered with the question "do you think anyone would CHOOSE to be a social outcast?"
I couldn't care less about General Pace's personal opinion of
homosexuality. My own opinion is that Pace is ignorant. He is certainly
free to be ignorant; but he crosses the line when, as a U.S. Military
official, he publicly imposes his ignorance on--and insults--the troops
under his command and on the American people.
No doubt his opinion is based on certain taboos that show up in some (but
not ALL) religious scriptures--taboos that have no founding in scientific
fact, but simply reflect long-held biases inherited from one primitive
belief system or another. One can find legions of such taboos, if one has
the time and patience to pore through reams of the 'sacred' scriptures of
all the world's religions. Many of these scriptures contradict each
other....some even contradict themselves.
More often than not, one sect will find the taboos of other sects either
laughable or disgusting. In a pluralist--and multi-cultural--society such
as America's Founders provided for, we certainly ought to be able to agree
that one sect's prohibitions on, say, eating meat on Friday or not eating
pork at all, should not be a basis for laws that are supposed to be
equally applicable to all citizens across the board....particularly in the
thousands of cases where all the priests, shamans, rabbis, gurus and
philosophers disagree (sometimes quite adamantly!) with each other. This
is exactly why the Founders refused to take sides in these kinds of
questions, requiring us, instead to agree to disagree PEACEFULLY among
ourselves while allowing every sect and every individual to observe his
particular 'moral' sanctions/prohibitions himself without expecting others
to share them. We need to respect each other's harmless differences, and
not use our own peculiar beliefs as a club to beat people over their heads.
Mr. Pace, of course, is not alone in misconstruing what his--and
others'--civic responsibilities ought to be. There would be much more
peace in this country (and in the world!) if all laws were based on Reason
rather than conflicting Superstitions or long-forgotten taboos. Let's hope
that day will come....before we humans end up exterminating our entire
species.
ballerina and rjhuntington:
Most people do what society taught them to do --> to be straight.
However, we should remember that millions of people choose to become social outcasts all of the time!
The Thugs of the ghetto are proud of that very fact.
Most of the kids wearing black and piercing their stuff all over their bodies choose to present themselves as outcasts.
Most motorcycle gangs consider themselves outsiders, (outcasts in society) but the moment they join the gang, they have instant friends with instant respect for having taken that leap.
The punkers are proud to be social outcasts. They feel they are part of a bigger counterculture movement when they simply walk down the street wearing a scary skull t-shirt that literally and figuratively screams "MISFITS". I know because I once walked that walk!
The gay community in America is huge already and growing. There was one gay bar in my town when I was growing up. The local straight population has actually gone down, but now we have three gay bars in my town. The most popular dance bar in town is a gay bar. A lot of straight people began going there because it is more fun than the boring straight clubs.
In fact, there are more gay bars in my town than there are Moose Lodges! And almost anywhere in the country, a gay person can walk into a gay bar and talk the gay talk and, voila, they have an instant support network. I bet gay friends are even much nicer than straight friends because they have already been through similar "outcast" ordeals with family and friends.
I guess it doesn't really matter. I just wanted to let you guys know that your argument was not without holes. People inflict ordeals upon themselves all of the time, even suicide. Certainly, if we agree that some people choose to commit suicide, then some other people can choose to be gay. Don't count on science solving this riddle anytime soon. I should know, I am a scientist.
Ultimately, arguing that God made people gay is not helpful. It usually further angers the dogmatic religious zealots.
On the other hand, all of the major world religions preach that humility, love, and compassion are at the foundation of truth. Therefore, if we can humbly remind them, the "Christian" gay-haters, that gay people need our love too, then there won't be a need for any further arguments.
I read of an interesting piece of research which showed that men who were homophobic showed a sexual response to gay porn, whereas non-homophobic heterosexuals did not.
This makes a lot of sense, because as a heterosexual, I have never understood the concept that people choose to be gay - nor have I felt any particular antipathy towards homosexuals.
When someone talks about choosing to be gay, I suspect that they have failed to come to terms with the fact that they are at least bisexual themselves. This is where all the anger and angst comes from.
The infamous case of the Rev Ted Haggard, also points in the same direction!
>>>>
Don't count on science solving this riddle anytime soon. I should know, I am a scientist.
>>>>
I have never based my argument for gay rights--or more precisely, for gay LIBERATION--on any kind of science. I agree that the jury is still out on the evidence.
Instead, I have always made the argument that questions about nature/nurture/choice are irrelevant. Whether I am gay by some genetic predisposition, by life experience, by choice or by pure whim simply DOES NOT matter.
Frankly, I wish people wouldn't make the argument that says, essentially, "I'm gay because I can't help it." I take issue with those who are counting on science to prove that they have no choice in the matter. Contrary to the claims of some who say they would 'choose' to be heterosexual if they had their druthers, I would (given a choice) quite happily CHOOSE to be Queer.
In spite of the many apparent drawbacks to being proudly and assertively Queer, I can't imagine living my life any other way, nor would I want to. I think our struggles to be (unapologetically!) our "authentic selves" have given us a unique perspective on many other aspects of personal liberation. We in the Queer community have an incredibly rich history and culture apart from the history/culture of people who consider themselves, for lack of a better term, "ordinary".
We ought to embrace our "uniquenesses" (just as ANY individual of any race, gender, ethnicity, religion or political persuasion ought to embrace his own). We have a lot to give to the larger community precisely because of our varying perspectives on the culture we confront. This is not to say that it's EASY to be different; but I suggest that it can be very fulfilling and (ultimately) self-actualizing.
I believe Freud once said that we are all born "polymorphously perverse", capable of responding to a variety of stimuli. What makes some of us Queer, some of us 'straight' and some of us somewhere along the sexual
spectrum, is a mystery that may never be solved. I'm content to leave it so...leaving no one to be ashamed of his predelictions so long as they do not harm others.
aybayb
Okay. True enough. I don't intend to trivialize/compartmentalize your hardships.
I have no idea what it is like to be a woman either, but gender is not on my list for determining interesting/disinteresting people either. I gauge men and women equally, or so I believe I do consciously. I don't really need to know what it is like to be a woman to like a woman or a man.
I suppose I could always try to empathize more with women and gays. That's true about any group of people that isn't just like "my group". Actually, I wish there weren't groups at all. I wish we could all be just people. Oh well. Aybayb, to me, you are just a person like me in spite of our differences.
Have a nice weekend.
aybayb
Your logic sits well with me. Your sexual preference is none of my business! On a list of most important things I like to know about people, it isn't in the top ten.
I am ordinary when it comes to sex, except for the fact that I am the first in a long line of Hermans (according to our geneological record)to have married a person of African origin. In that way I am abnormal, if not perverse in some way.
In many other ways, I am hardly ordinary, but that is entirely another story.
>>>>
Your logic sits well with me. Your sexual preference is none of my business! On a list of most important things I like to know about people, it isn't in the top ten.
>>>>
Ahhh....but please do NOT trivialize the importance of sexual/affectional orientation. Those who are among the heterosexual majority can afford to be casual about their orientation AND the orientation of others; but let's not forget that we live in an extremely homophobic culture.
For those of us who are single and 'looking' our identity as gay is problematic. Among the 'universe' of possible mates, we have a pretty small number from whom to choose. Half the population is the wrong sex, 90% of the rest are probably heterosexual (or trying to pass themselves off as heterosexual, given the prevailing attitudes in our culture), at least 25% of the rest are already 'paired'.
From the small pool that's left, it's VERY important to know that someone is available...and to let him know that you yourself are available. To make a move blindly on someone who only SEEMS to fit the necessary criteria is to risk at least a 'strikeout', but at worst a violent attack. Hence the reason so many of us have learned to be circumspect about our personal lives.
What I'm saying is that an avowed heterosexual cannot gauge the behavior of gay/Lesbian/Queer people by the same standard as he views his own behavior. To those heterosexuals who crow that "I don't go around telling people I'm straight," I can only say that they miss the point.
>>>
Have a nice weekend
>>>
You, too, Andrew.Herman. I don't think we have any differences.
just reading the title i had to comment
God didn't create male and female gay. He created male and female to love each other and produce offsprings and bare fruit on the land. gayness and lesbianess is a chose. homosexuality is acutally a sin. That is why sodom and Gomorrah, in the Bible got destroyed. If you don't believe me read it. Genesis chapter 19. Oh and God doesn't condemn homosexuals to hell. He lets them decide. if till the end they choose to stay that way then they do end up in Hell. We are all born of natural sin. Its the path that we choose that leads to Heaven or Hell. You knowGod can destory the whole earth right now if He wants to, but since He loves us so much, although He is aching like none other inside, He is waiting for everyone on the whole earth to accept His offering. Jesus.
There is a scripture in the bible that states that people that are homosexual will not EVER go to heaven but go to Hell. God said that is very immoral right there and said that that is wrong in the scripture. I personally think that homosexuals are just wrong and is very disgusting. We may make the choice, but I for one think its the wrong decision.