Homosexuality

"Do you think being gay is a sin? Is it a choice?"

Let’s start with the second question first.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION VS. SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

Sexual orientation is by definition NOT a choice. While scientists have not yet pinpointed the physiological cause of one’s sexual orientation, it is clear that one’s orientation is neither a product of choice nor environment. Support of this exists scientifically in the form of double-blind pheromone experiments, the lack of uniting social or other environmental factors during childhood amongst homosexuals, and the prevalence of homosexuality and bisexuality throughout time, country, and culture, as well as in cases of homosexual behavior among animals – including species which are biologically monogamous. It also exists in the common reflection of one’s own sexuality and the difficulty with which most people could imagine a long term romantic and sexual relationship with a member of the non-desired sex, and in the painful reflection of those individuals who have taken their own lives due largely to the rejection by others because of their sexuality – if sexual orientation was a choice, then surely those individuals would choose to be straight rather than choose to commit suicide.

That being said, however, sexual behavior IS a choice. While we may not be able to decide to whom we are attracted, we can make decisions about our behavior. Homosexuals have as many options regarding sexual behavior as heterosexuals, varying from abstinence, to monogamy, to promiscuity (and it would be just as incorrect to assume all homosexuals are promiscuous as it would be to assume that all heterosexuals are monogamous). Additionally, the fact that homosexual orientation is not a choice does not inherently make it morally acceptable; there is a large amount of evidence suggesting that pedophiles do not choose to be sexually attracted to children, yet we can all agree that pedophilic behavior is definitively immoral.

So then, in examining the morality of homosexuality, while recognizing that it is not a choice we must examine the behavior itself.

THE MORALITY OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

To keep things simplified, we will focus solely on homosexual behavior which in all ways other than the gender of one’s partner reflects the most commonly respected heterosexual behavior: that of a long-term monogamous partnership.

In examining this, we will refer to the previously established purpose of morality and ask whether a monogamous homosexual relationship would violate or uphold the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind. Recognizing that what is most moral can change due to time and place, and we will examine this relationship as occurring modern day and in a developed first world country.

First is the question of its impact on the immediate and long-term survival of mankind. A monogamous homosexual relationship would not pose any inherent threat to the health or well-being of either partner, nor any neighbors or other members of their community. In regards to the long-term survival of mankind, the biological inability to produce offspring is a legitimate concern; however, with modern technology it is possible for the couple to have children of their own with the assistance of a sperm donor or an egg donor and surrogate mother. Additionally, in every first world country there are today a very large number of orphans, children without any home or family, who by being adopted can be afforded a better chance of current and future health and well-being. In this way, then, a homosexual relationship would not threaten the survival of mankind, and could indeed support it.

Secondly, we must examine the impact on the thriving of mankind. There is no logical reason that I can fathom to believe that a homosexual relationship would impede upon the autonomy, freedoms, or moral lifestyle of either themselves or others; nor in any other way impede the thriving of mankind. Indeed, the fact of the other partner’s gender seems to have no bearing on that couples’ impact on their community, with the major factors of social and neighborhood interaction existing independently of sexual orientation. As to the thriving of future generations, opponents of same-sex couples adopting have argued that it would be very detrimental to a child of any gender to be raised without role models of both the male and female gender. In this regard, I fully agree that raising children without such role models would be detrimental to the thriving of mankind; however, there is absolutely no reason to think that a same-sex couple would or even could raise a child without a variety of role models of both genders. Large sample studies and individual case studies of children raised in both same-sex and single parent homes have found those children to be just as well adjusted as a child raised in a male-female parental home. Every child raised for properly will be exposed not just to their parents as role models, but also family members such as grandparents, aunts and uncles; teachers; coaches; neighbors; church leaders; scout leaders; club leaders, etc. And so there is no reason to believe that a modern-day monogamous homosexual relationship would pose a threat to the immediate or long-term survival or thriving of humankind.

For this reason, I strongly believe that homosexuality is in no way inherently immoral.

(aka: not a sin.)

DEFENSE OF ANCIENT IMMORALITY

The challenge for many in accepting this view, however, lies in the prevalence of the view of homosexuality as deeply immoral. This is not simply a view of many modern day Christians, but spans across several major religions with admonitions against homosexuality in a variety of holy texts, and is also seen in the secular beliefs of many cultures for centuries. The existence of a few religious faiths and cultures, both ancient and modern, which embrace homosexuality or even revered it, carries as little weight to those who view homosexuality as inherently immoral as the existence of cultures which view cannibalism as moral. Many proponents of equal rights for sexual minorities are quick to point out that most scriptural references used in opposition to homosexuality refer not to monogamous loving homosexual relationships but to general sexual depravity and promiscuity, or that those passages appear within sections of law pertaining to diet, clothing, and other forbidden practices no longer adhered to. This is largely true, but does not discount the fact that no ancient Rabbi would marry two men or two women, and that none of the writers of any of the ancient holy texts which condemn any form of homosexuality likely believed that a monogamous homosexual relationship was moral.

And so we must apply our standard of morality within the time and environment of those writings. It can be easy to forget just how old our holy texts are, and just how different the world was in those days.  Since 0 AD, the world’s population has increased by approximately 3,295%. To return to the population of the world at the approximate time of Jesus Christ’s life, we would have to have over 100 more WWII’s. At that time, entire communities were dependent upon families producing as many children as they possibly could: if a community failed to bring forth enough new members, it didn’t just hurt that community’s productivity but could result in the death of entire family lines and even the community itself. Infertile couples were often viewed as cursed, and every healthy child born from a mother who survived the birth was a welcome blessing. It is easy, then, to see just how immoral it would be for someone of a homosexual orientation in one of these communities to choose to engage in homosexual behavior – even if in a loving and monogamous relationship. To do so with no means to bare new life for the community would threaten both the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of that sample of mankind, and would be a brazen act of selfishness and disregard for others.

With today’s modern medicine and growing overpopulation issue, the morality of heterosexual relationships has most certainly changed – not just within the secular community but within most religious communities as well. Many churches no longer ban the use of contraceptives, and even those that still do no longer preach the birthing of as many children as possible with the same sense of moral urgency as the days of old. For a woman to delay childbirth to pursue a career, or pursue one while raising a child, would have been strongly condemned by most church leaders even just a hundred years ago. Even the cause for marriage has shifted; while most people today would consider arranged  marriage borderline if not absolutely immoral, with matrimony formed through true love viewed as the most admirable and moral, it wasn’t that long ago in which just the opposite was the case.

Does it not make sense then that the morality of homosexual unions has shifted as well? Morality does not change based upon the whims and desires of mankind; it does, however, change according to the circumstances of time and environment. 2,000 years ago, it would have been very difficult for two homosexuals to enter into a relationship upholding their moral obligation to their community; but today that can be a reality.

FINAL NOTE: GODLESS, DISEASED PERVERTS

When, in the United States, the slaves were first freed, it was widely believed that they were inherently unintelligent. Of course, as slaves it had been illegal for them to receive an education, and so upon their freedom nearly all were illiterate and without any formal schooling. It was also believed that they had naturally shorter life spans and were more susceptible to disease and illness. Pointing to their “lack of intelligence” they were refused education; pointing to their “natural infirmity” they were denied medical treatment and forced to live in squalid unsanitary conditions. And so the stereotypes were indeed made manifest by the very people who perpetuated them.

Today, homosexuals are seen by many as godless, diseased, and promiscuous. As such, they have often been thrown out of and excommunicated from their churches, rejected by heterosexual friends, abandoned and disowned by their own parents. Without the support of their church, their friends, or their family; having been taught all their lives that they are wretched sinners; and with often long suppressed sexual urges, it is of little surprise that many homosexuals turn to the very lifestyle they’d been falsely accused of to begin with. Finally, things are changing. Just as the first efforts to provide the freed slaves and their children with education, medicine, and sanitary living conditions led to generations which progressively proved the stereotypes to be false, the early works of homosexuals and their allies who refused to believe in the stereotypes have given rise to a generation of grown gays and lesbians who are proving that they can be just as loving, committed and moral as heterosexuals and to an increasing number of young gays and lesbians who are committed to living a good and decent life. As more and more churches embrace homosexuals and celebrate their unions, more gays and lesbians are able to live both honestly and reverently.

I strive every day to see and bring out the best in myself and others. I believe in living a good and moral life, I am looking forward to one day having a family of my own, and I am working towards becoming an ordained minister with the open encouragement and blessing of my church. I am also a homosexual. I thank God that I was born in an age in which I could live this life as I feel I am truly meant to, and I pray that the hatred born of misunderstanding may be lifted before I find myself blessed with children of my own.

On Morality

"Do you think being gay is a sin? Is it a choice? Suicide, is that bad? It helps with pain and I was a chirstian for 15years but nothing benifited and my life was still miserable and pathetic, what then?" -Anonymous

This series of questions was posted a little while back on my Formspring account. As I consider the answers, I realize that there is an underlying concept that I have to first address, a concept I began to ponder while studying Philosophy and Ethics this past semester at college.

I used to be plagued by the thought of whether or not there was some universal form of morality. The moral codes by which people live vary from culture to culture and time period to time period. Morality seems then to be a social construct, some artifice of mankind created to keep people in line. This, however, has never felt wholly true. When I commit a wrongdoing, when I feel that pang of guilt, it seems to come from deep within me, and not from some echo of my mother’s or minister’s voice in my head. Would a child raised without human contact have a sense of morality? No, but nor would that child have the capability of speech or higher thought, those things which we consider key elements of our humanity. Yes, we learn morality from our culture, but there is something as universally human about it as speech and higher thought.

So what is that universality of morals? What remains absolute throughout time, place, and culture? I think it is the underlying purpose, or goal, of morality.

That purpose is the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind.

Every culture has worked towards this, and every moral system I have ever been exposed to or heard of has believed itself to be working towards this end. Those cases of immoral actions or codes of those who believed themselves to be “good” can be seen as instances in which there was a lack or error in knowledge or perspective. Consider that in the most heinous cases of mass-murder and genocide, the attackers first removed the victims from their concept of humankind; and in those cultures which practiced human sacrifice or other activities recognized in the modern world as supremely immoral, those actions were performed from a belief that they were necessary for the survival or thriving of humankind itself. So, while I may reject the particular “moral” codes or behaviors of others, I recognize an underlying universality which supports in my own life the idea that morality is something more than just a social construct. Additionally, we can see both that there is an absolute “right” and “wrong” (that which most or least fulfills the above-stated purpose) and that that which is most morally right or wrong can change through time and environment (as the conditions for the survival and thriving of mankind change).

For these reasons, when I am struck in life with a challenging moral dilemma or question I ponder how the options for acting in that situation affect the immediate and long-term survival and thriving of humankind. Survival is easy enough to measure, but thriving is clearly a different challenge. Just what it is I mean by “thriving” is somewhat difficult to describe, as it relates to that element of our humanity which is largely ineffable. I feel, however, that the greatest evidence of mankind thriving is participation in the arts. When people are not just surviving, but creating and observing art – be it painting, literature, performance, or some other form – then we can be confident they are thriving.

But why does it even matter? Following a moral code or instruction from some organization or teacher can be dangerous – all we have to do is consider how many people have performed heinous deeds under the belief that they were following orders from the morally just to see the value in finding a system of independent evaluation. With this understanding of the underlying and universal purpose of morality, we can then examine any issue, and with the proper knowledge and perspective arrive at the most truly just and moral conclusion.