Mr. Bennett points out there are no definitive studies proving sexuality is genetic. However Bennett deceives by omission. He repeatedly asserts sexuality is developmental but fails to cite any such study to back this up. Instead Bennett provides a pathetic string non-clinically supported claims of “broken father” type stereotypes.
Honestly I expected more salient (or at least original) arguments could be mustered for a debut episode.
Just because no gene has been positively identified doesn’t mean that heredity isn’t the primary factor. This paper explains how we can tell. Studies in the 1950’s and 1960’s by researchers who were actually trying to prove Freud’s assertions about the behavioral causes of homosexuality failed to find any correlations at all, let alone any hint of causation. This is a prime reason the APA delisted homosexuality in the mid 1970’s. No research since then as shown otherwise.
Two things-
I agree that gays are a fertile ground with for the gospel, but a gospel of LOVE- that God loves you for you!
I disagree that you can change the ‘gay’ child
children don’t have a personality enough to ‘know’ gay. Try and change them as a child, you instill hatred for self.
So much twisted logic on that radio show- SAD!
There is no genetic difference in black people and white people either.
But a racist would just hate the idea that a black person has the same DNA and basic functioning person as he does.
That however certain groups ARE MADE TO LIVE is “a social construct and not a scientific one”…as columnist Brent Staples said in the NYTimes today, regarding his own family DNA test.
This is the whiff I get from anti homosexual people. That because there is no genetic link (or lets just say, no distinction from) to HOMOSEXUALITY, that automatically means an inferior or deformed aspect of sexuality.
There is no strongly distinct genetic difference between left handed or right handed people either.
Something of a slight difference in brain function, but once again-it’s not a deformity or inferior function.
Just, different.
S. Bennett is herniating himself to try and justify that somehow gay people are not functioning properly.
Well, maybe HE didn’t…as an individual.
He and these other so called experts are trying to feel superior and better suited for their Consitutional freedoms as if we haven’t seen this movie before against people who were also behaviorally different, like Jews.
Or those with superficial differences like skin color…or genetic differences like gender.
The botton line, our equal TREATMENT of each other made all the difference in social progress, not treating someone badly for what they were.
His audience would have to be people incapable of critical thinking for him to either sound smart or get away with it without being especially prepared for his own argument.
What part of ‘lack of genetic distinctions’ is considered NORMAL, doesn’t he understand?
Regan, people who would typically be an audience for Bennett’s pathetic roadshow in all likelihood don’t know any better. I would suspect they regurgitate what they have been socialized to view gay people as: sick, depraved and unworthy human beings. Little doubt in my mind about that. A great juxtaposition here when people like Bennett spout co-relating being gay with having a mental illness is how they would view and treat persons with other mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Are those people deserved of ostracism as well? If you read the false information posted on the website of the traditional values coalition, one gets a keen sense that these phoney christians would discriminate against all persons with a mental illness. It just amazes me the number of experts there are out there in the psychological and phsyiological make-up of gay people. Very, very sad that they don’t have a life and have a severe case of the buttinski disorder. 🙂
From the post
He (Bennett) repeatedly asserts sexuality is developmental…
I’ve probably been banned from here, but I have to make a final comment, in hopes that it might be posted.
What Bennett apparently does not understand is that, in asserting that “sexuality is developmental” he is essentially attacking my parents. I cannot abide the fact that some stranger like Bennett is attacking my parents.
The origins argument is a red herring. If it were ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that sexual orientation is biologically determined, the anti-gay folk would need all of three seconds to switch to saying that gays are biologically inferior. Some of them already are making that argument.
The argument that needs to be made is, whatever the cause may be, so what? What’s wrong with it?
Why does sexuality need a cause? Perhaps we can just say that it ‘is’ and takes a wide range of forms. Like almost everything else in the world. Just there is sexuality which has a wide range of expression, as do hair color, eye color, on and on. No need for a cause. Simply show that this is the case.
The reason cause is such a biggie to the religious folks is:
step 1: if there’s a biological “cause”, then there’s no choice; if there’s no choice, then being gay isn’t a sin.
step 2: if gay people are intrinsicaly so, then society can’t demand that gay people be straight. At most it can demand celibacy or monogamy.
The religious right wants to avoid step 2 at all cost. They rightly suspect that the public is likely to make the leap that if being gay isn’t a sin, then finding someone to love is not a sin either.
This is why this debate is so VERY VERY important and we would be foolish to not realize and argue accordingly.
Until the country deals with step 1, it can’t move on to step 2.
In terms of morality it doesn’t matter if being gay is a choice or not, what matters is how we treat each other. Sin and morality is about how we treat others. The essence of morality is “do whatever you want but don’t interfere in anyone else’s right to do the same” or as the Wiccans put it “do whatever you want but harm no one”. Morality is fairness, equality, and balance. The law recognizes that there must be a balance struck between the individual and society. Just because society has the power to control individual lives does not mean it is always morally correct to do so. As long as gays enjoy their lives loving and supporting each other without hurting anyone else its not for society to say that’s wrong anymore than its society’s right to punish people for choosing to wear a blue shirt or drive a 2 door car instead of a 4 door. There has to be a valid reason to oppose individual choices and that religious dogma doesn’t like gay sex isn’t reason enough. There have been thousands of religions over the millenia and at best only one of them might be inerrantly correct. The odds of it possibly being Christianity are thousands to one against and that isn’t good enough to make it the unchallenged authority. Society doesn’t automatically have the right to oppose a behavior simply because its a choice. Religion is a choice and the right to make that choice without interference by society is fiercely defended. A person’s body and mind belongs only to them unless they choose to hurt another. Lifesite sent me an email saying “those who would let you do what you want aren’t your friends”. I beg to differ. That is the problem with the religious conservatives, they don’t realize the only life they have the right to control is their own. Anyone who feels they have the right to judge and control people who aren’t hurting them is certainly no friend and certainly not moral. That is an afront to equality and fairness, the real foundation of society. Every religious person I’ve argued with I’ve asked to make a committment to fairnes and equality, or at least to tell me their place in their philosophy. They’ve all been unwilling to respond, what does that say about the morality of fundamentalists?!
Randi,
“Sin and morality is about how we treat others.”
Very true.
“The essence of morality is “do whatever you want but don’t interfere in anyone else’s right to do the same” or as the Wiccans put it “do whatever you want but harm no one”.”
Jesus took it further than the Wiccan neutrality statemend and said that morality required a more active position: “treat others the way you want them to treat you”. In his teaching, it was not moral just to leave folks alone, you actually had to care for their physical needs.
“Every religious person I’ve argued with I’ve asked to make a committment to fairnes and equality, or at least to tell me their place in their philosophy. They’ve all been unwilling to respond, what does that say about the morality of fundamentalists?!”
I’m a religious person. And I firmly believe in fairness and equality.
In fact, most religious people I’ve met in my life, conservative or liberal, firmly believe in fairness (so much so that this is considered an underlying characteristic of Christianity). Most believe in equality (more liberals than conservatives).
Even conservatives Christians believe that they believe in equality. They do NOT believe that all choices or actions are equal, but they try to apply equality to persons – it all comes to how they view “persons”.
As long as they view gay people as having “chosen” to be gay then they are (in their minds) applying exactly the same standards to you that they apply to themselves. This is, like it or not, equality. The problem is that the circumstances for gay and straight people are not equal.
In order for conservative Christians to side with us on any issues (and they can) it has to be clear to them that gay people are distinctly gay, not flawed heterosexuals. They need to recognize that response to circumstances must be applied equally, not rules.
Though I know some here argue that this is a waste of time, frankly those who make such arguments seem to know the very least about conservative Christians and seem also to be quite hostile to Christianity or religion in general. You’ll forgive me if I suggest that such arguments are based on ignorance rather than knowledge and thus not compelling.
Timothy, I’m glad to hear you say you believe in fairness and equality. You’re the first religous person I’ve heard make that committment, but you are not anti-gay, are you? I’ve only argued with anti-gay religious people and not one has been willing to even state a philosophical position on fairness or equality let alone state support for them. I guess we move in different circles.
The ultimate social goal is to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain for all in an equal way and yes I agree “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”. I agree I know little about conservative Christians but that is as much due to their unwillingness to explain their motivations as it is anything else. I’ve asked anti-gay Christians if their religion is about doing the right thing, again a refusal to answer.
Yes, I have become hostile to religion in general. It is primarily the religious who are fostering the social rejection of gays that has cost me most of my family and a good chunk of my mental health. They may believe they believe in equality but actions speak louder. Their actions show they believe they have the right to control not just their own lives, but gay lives as well. They are the first to take offense at anyone trying to control their lives yet they would do it to others without a second thought. That’s inherently unequal and immoral
Randi,
I can’t argue with that. The most vocal and extreme elements of the Christian community are truly hateful and vile but they are far from the majority – even of conservatives.
I think part of the problem for most general ordinary non-activist conservatives is that there is currently a war for their hearts. They want to believe in the traditions of their church but they also don’t want to be cruel.
The conservatives really don’t believe any longer that gay people are just heteros that decided to be wild and have forbidden sex. And since they know this, it makes it tough on them to continue to believe that gay people should not find love. It causes a conflict in their belief system and they don’t want to deal with it. That could explain why they have such a tough time articulating.
And that’s why the ex-gay movement is so insideous. It gives them an easy out.
The ex-gay movement tells them that they can still apply their anti-gay rules without being cruel. All you have to do is just be ex-gay and then everyone’s happy. You get to have all the joy they have in being straight and society is better off too.
If only those “extremist radical homosexual activist who just want to hate Christians” would shut up then their conflict could go away.
Unfortunately for them the ex-gay movement is based on lies and the hopes are false.
Once the bubble is burst, I really truly expect (over time) that the instinct for kindness will kick in for the greater Christian community. Eventually they will see homosexuality no worse than they do a divorcee or even a left-handed person.
It will take time, but it’s moving fast.
Timothy, I hope your assessment is accurate but as I tend to communicate with only the most strenuous religious opponents of GLBT equality I often get discouraged as there seems to be no moral foundation at all. I would like to believe Christianity and all religions are about doing the right thing, about equality but I don’t Unless Christians divorce themselves from the old testament part of the religion is “Jews are the chosen ones”. Don’t know if that’s in the new testament too, I’ve only read the old.
That is the fundamental flaw I find in all religions, they put one group of people at the center of the universe and say “we’re special” which inevitably leads to us versus them justifications instead of a belief in the equality of all. I hope and think its reasonable for people to decide all religions are ultimately about doing the right thing, fairness, equality, but clearly some religious people – the anti-gays – do not. I asked my anti-gay religious sister to just give me a summary of what her religion was about. She was afraid to do even that. One anti-gay fundamentalist Christian I know said “People think Christianity is about doing good, or the right thing but they’re wrong. Its about ‘accept Jesus and you’ll be saved’.” To me that shows that at the heart of anti-gay religious people’s philosophy is “me above everyone else”.
I think you’re right many christians are struggling with contradictions in their belief system about gays. It is changing for the better but some are willfully blind to the unfairness of their positions and the harm it causes.
An ex-gay NEA member is doing ads for Proposition 75 in California.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/1/191519/119#5
It was all very easy for me. I never struggled to understand gay men and women or my gay teen peers.
As far as I can see, no heterosexuals should be arguing with gay people, against gay people or without intimate experience with gay people in a socially equal environment.
I knew as a child, I knew as a teen, I know now.
Live with gay folks, listen to gay folks.
The answer is in who you love enough to do that much.
There is plenty of opportunity to do that, every day.
Those who keep avoiding those chances…really prefers the dark.
“really prefers the dark”…well, that *would* account for his graphics! 🙂
Daniel, I think you expected way too freakin’ much.
Randi,
People are going to start thinking I’m a religious nut if I post another thought on Christianity. (heck, I’m going to start thinking so soon). But…
The early Christian church was deeply divided over whether you had to become part of the “Chosen People” to be a follower of Christ.
James, the brother of Jesus (yeah, he had some), led a group in Jerusalem that taught that outsiders had to become circumcised and follow the Law of Moses to be a Christian. Paul who’s following was comprised to a great deal by Greeks taught that there was “neither Jew nor Gentile” and that circumcision and the dietary laws were unnecessary. They weren’t particularly nice to each other.
There were whole bunches of other groups that taught all sorts of things and wrote piles of Gospels, Epistles, etc. Eventually, after a few hundred years, the group that followed Paul’s teachings won and chucked out everyone else’s teachings. Thus, technically, Christianity became a religion that wasn’t focused on being a chosen people.
Of course, human nature being what it is, it soon became one again.
Timothy, I’ll take your word on most of that. What concerns me about all religions is they all have a complex series of rules which seperates people into adherents and non-adherents. Anti-gay fundamentalists in particular see it as us versus them and in my experience oppose an equal valuing of “them” (nonadherents, gays, badpeople). They see a committment to the equality of all mankind as a bad thing. If fairness and equality were the ultimate deciding factors in the application of their rules I wouldn’t have a problem with religion. Sometimes equality and fairness are not the ultimate deciding factors in what they ask of others.
If “Focus on the Family” groups loved gays as they claim to they’d give full consideration to all non-exgay GLBT viewpoints. They don’t give any at all because they do not, as they claim, love (which places an equal concern on oneself and the object of said love). A loving society seeks at least a degree of equality or balance between individual needs and society. These primarily fundamentist anti-gays want things to be as one sided as possible between society and GLBT’s who do not want to be “exgay”. They feel its fair or reasonable for them to control gay lives in a major way because it makes them feel slightly better not to have that 10 seconds of a typical day when they have annoying thoughts of people with same sex attractions.
As I see it, the “everything is possible with god” idea justifies an unscientific “anything goes” attitude towards logic and by extension debate. That idea that the bible can contradict itself and be inerrant is rationalizable in the same way as is some exgays’ willingness to lie and exagerate to paint all gays negatively. If anything goes and its all good, then if anti-gay fundamentalists believe a religious goal is to maximally suppress same sex sexual behavior then a little thing like lying is perfectly acceptable.
I find it very hard to give a pass to people who place a lower value on considering my autonomy equal to theirs than to a rigid adherence to ideas they accepted at face value when they were too young to think logically.
Yawn
I found some terrific comic strips that just capture the essence of Stephen Bennett’s new project, and posted them to my blog with a brief explanation.
See them here. (Incidentally, for anyone who may need or want “advance warning”, my logo is a female nude painting.)
As for the ex-gay NEA member…well, it’s nice to read about an ex-gay with an honest job.
Timothy – I find the particulars of any given religion boring as well, but a couple of curiosities:
Paul wasn’t Jesus or God but an imperfect human apostle. Why should any reader of the bible assume his word (on who are the chosen people, for example) takes precidence over God’s or Jesus’ word?
As to the idea that the apologeticists have resolved all biblical self contradictions: who appointed them God and why should any reader of the bible just concede they are correct simply because they claim to know something the reader doesn’t – which they won’t reveal so the reader can judge for his/herself? Why should anyone accept on blind faith someone else’s interpretation of the bible just because that person claims greater knowledge? That’s what I see you asking us non-believers to do.
What strikes me is the way that many of these anti-gay fundamentalists repeatedly use the trashy, fallacious “absence of proof equals proof of absence” argument. They point out that the evidence produced by Levay, Hamer and other reserachers falls short of proving that homosexuality is genetically caused, and then say that definitely proves that it isn’t. I have yet to hear them apply a similar argument to the existence of God.
William, that is such a fantastic point! 🙂 I believe I’ll be borrowing that…