Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost launched a “gay gene” discussion that satirically touches upon the difficulties facing heterosexual couples when one partner suddenly identifies as gay.
Some of the commenters appear reasonably balanced in perspective; others adhere to the strawman that belief in a gay gene is fervent and widespread among gay people. And some commenters are focused squarely on Biblical ramifications of the debate — as they should be, at an evangelical blog.
Randy Thomas of Exodus chimed in to the discussion, declaring he is no longer gay. Great, I responded — except for the redefinition of “gay.” I wished him luck with celibacy — and I meant that with sincerity.
The discussion could use gay-tolerant Christian Biblical input, as well as well-informed and polite comments on nature-vs-nature scientific findings.
*yawn* Isn’t it common knowledge that the “gay gene” argument is a straw man? Even if genetics doesn’t play a role in sexual orienation, there are still the pre-natal and epigenetic factors to consider, as well as why so many gay men have a more feminine facial structure. I somehow doubt that a person’s face physically becomes feminine because of a distant father or a molestor.
Went there, posted a few times, and generally found most of the posters there about what I would expect: completely uninformed.
We’ve discussed issues like this on the NYTimes gay rights board. Usually the question boiled down to whether genes, which obviously influence structure, could also affect behavior. It is quite evident to anyone paying attention that genes can affect not only structure, but also behavior. The mechanism by which genes influence structure is fairly evident, but the mechanism by which genes influence behavior is less evident. That doesn’t mean, however, that genes don’t influence behavior.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that there is a “gay gene,” either. It only suggests that there might be a “gay gene.”
Although the import of the issue escapes me. Who cares whether or not there is a gay gene. Is there a Catholic gene? A Protestant gene? A Buddhist gene? If the issue is civil rights laws, all civil rights laws include religion–although most do not include sexual orientation. Perhaps the anti-gay crowd should be required to provide a basis for including religion–which is obviously a choice–but not sexual orientation. Mike might want to ask his friend Randy Thomas about that, but I suspect that Thomas is too ensconced in his current gig with the anti-gay crowd to respond.
Did you see Christianity Today’s smackdown of Swaggart’s comments?
Crouch isn’t the only TV preacher who needs help with his theology this week. In his September 12 broadcast, Jimmy Swaggart (remember him?) demonstrated exactly how not to oppose gay marriage. “I’m trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men,” he said. “I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.”
One might think that someone who has publicly experienced brokenness in his sexuality might be a bit more careful in his words. In this line of thinking, wouldn’t the prostitute that Swaggart hired have been justified in killing him?
Homophobia might be a word thrown about too carelessly by the left, but remarks like Swaggart’s are why the word exists in the first place. Let’s be “blunt and plain”: Biblically speaking, for a Christian minister to make such a comment is at least as sinful as it is for people to engage in homosexual activity.
>Homophobia might be a word thrown about too carelessly by the left
Can it. “Left” is nothing more than a noise word.
“Left” may be a noise word in the culture wars, but so is “can it.”
(OK, it’s two noise words.)
Don’t just note what is denied but what is granted here. Namely, there is a legitimate use of the term homophobia. To rephrase Christianity Today, principled opposition to homosexual behavior on the grounds that it is sinful does not qualify for the term of homophobia. But, unprincipled and hypocritical opposition does. And in the opinion of Christianity Today, Jimmy Swaggart crossed that line. Or, to use a Biblical paradigm you must tell the truth in love. Since love was lacking here (let alone the truth), Jimmy Swaggart sinnned himself. Further, his sexual misconduct disqualifies him from being critical of any ones else’s. The Assemblies of God showed good sense when they defrocked him in the ’80s. I would go farther than Christianity Today in saying that Swaggart’s sin is greater than that which he attacked, not merely on parity. Murder is on God’s Top Ten list.
Mike A. | September 22, 2004 08:51 AM
>”Left” may be a noise word in the culture wars, but so is “can it.” (OK, it’s two noise words.)
Actually, I suspect that if you did an underscore between “can” and “it,” it would show up as one word “can_it.”
Don’t bash me: I’m trying to be a bit humorous here. But the fact is that when someone rants about the “left” (and I don’t know if Rich has, but there are others who have, as I have seen elsewhere), at some point it gets to be tiresome. There is even a weblog “dissecting leftism” https://dissectleft.blogspot.com/ where the proprietor does nothing more than (as far as one can tell) rant against people he doesn’t like. I don’t know if it still exists, but there used to be a web site Dads Against the Divorce Industry https://www.dadi.org in which the proprietor–it was clear–had felt himself abused in his divorce, but who, nonetheless–lashed out against “leftist” gay people.” There are many, many other examples of people throwing out the “leftist” epithet when it’s clear that they are merely ranting against people or ideas that they don’t like.
And that ignores Steve Miller’s (IndeGayForum’s “Culturewatch”–one wonders why they got rid of their message board to give him a virtually exclusive forum) rants against the so-genannte “gay left.”
As far as I can tell “left” largely translates into “I don’t like.” You don’t like? Big deal.
Rich’s next post actually contains some interesting commentary. I disagree with a lot of it, but in a way that might be surprising. Rich says
Rich | September 22, 2004 10:22 AM
>Namely, there is a legitimate use of the term homophobia. To rephrase Christianity Today, principled opposition to homosexual behavior on the grounds that it is sinful does not qualify for the term of homophobia
Well, um, why? Merely because it is allegedly based on a set of translation(s) of dubious reliability (given the number of translations) of a set of writings of dubious progeny? I doubt that anyone would consider that a “principled” basis for opposing homosexual behavior. You might persuade me differently, but I doubt it.
On the other hand, I can think of–and have discerned–several reasons for why some oppose homosexual behavior, none of which have anything to do with the translations of dubious reliability of writings of dubious progeny. None of which I would consider principled. One reason that I have discerned as to why some people oppose homosexual behavior is sexism, pure and simple. Particularly homosexual behavior among males: The belief that males who submit are placing themselves in the position of females, which for males is–in their idea–anathema. Another reason–probably of lesser importance now–is the desire among the older generation that their genetic lineage continue. Given the availability of artificial insemination, the second reason seems to have lost any relevance, but the sexist does, indeed, continue.
Rich also says
>And in the opinion of Christianity Today, Jimmy Swaggart crossed that line. Or, to use a Biblical paradigm you must tell the truth in love. Since love was lacking here (let alone the truth), Jimmy Swaggart sinnned himself. Further, his sexual misconduct disqualifies him from being critical of any ones else’s.
I disagree with you. (Are you surprised?). Not just Christianity, but pretty much all ethics, preaches not just that certain actions are sinful (that is, that they should be avoided), but also that one can be foregiven when one tries to atone for his transgressions. There is no question that Swaggart committed a sin–or, for us secular folk, he probably wronged his wife–when he slept with a person who was not his betrothed partner–and when he apparently did so multiple times. If he had confessed his sins to his wife and (optionally) to his God, when they occurred, then perhaps he would be worthy of forgiveness. But he did not. Instead of doing that, after his transgressions had been discovered, he weeped and wailed to the flock that he wanted to continue to fleece. That is, when he weeped and wailed to the people he hoped would continue to give him money. And the Assemblies of God sponsored him in his weeping and wailing–which more than suggests that they were complicit in his fraud.
Swaggart whined because he had been discovered, not because he had transgressed. That is what disqualifies him from being critical of someone else–regardless of whether the issue is the criticism of his or her sexual misconduct. Not because of his sexual misconduct. He was apparently unwilling to confess the transgressions when they occurred. And that is why he and AoG were hypcrits, and remain so to this day.
“Well, um, why? Merely because it is allegedly based on a set of translation(s) of dubious reliability (given the number of translations) of a set of writings of dubious progeny? I doubt that anyone would consider that a “principled” basis for opposing homosexual behavior.”
There are some people that do not consider the Bible as you have. Starting from that vantage point, if the exegesis is honest, then yes I do consider it principled. Consider me an existence proof against your statement since I think I qualify as an “anyone”. By the way, I consider MCC’s interpretation of the same Scriptures as principled, also. What is necessary here is an honest approach to the text. You don’t accept the text and that is fine, but there are others who do. What makes a position principled is that the moral basis is consistently applied.
While Raj correctly chronicled Swaggart’s hypocrisy, he wrongly conflated his hypocrisy with the AoG. Note the following from April 18, 1988 Time:
This time there were no tears, no tortured confessions, no anguished pleas for forgiveness. As Jimmy Swaggart took the podium outside his World Ministry headquarters in Baton Rouge, La., last week, the Pentecostal preacher seemed serene. The 13-member executive presbytery of the Assemblies of God had just voted unanimously to defrock him. The televangelist responded by announcing his resignation from the church.
The bottom line as Raj noted was that Swaggart was unrepentant and only shed crocodile tears. He also sought to defrock another pastor who committed the same sin he did. Jimmy Swaggart was and is a hypocrite with a capital H. His denomination noted it and kicked him out. Once out of their jurisdiction, AoG couldn’t do anything further about Swaggart. As my Catholic friends remind me, this is one of the messy downsides of Protestantism. Thus, it falls on evangelicals to rise up and note this outrage and condemn it in no uncertain terms. Evangelical Outpost takes up the subject here.
Rich | September 22, 2004 07:49 PM
>While Raj correctly chronicled Swaggart’s hypocrisy, he wrongly conflated his hypocrisy with the AoG.
This is correct. I was working from memory, and should have checked. I had–erroneously–recalled that AoG had delayed for a while before defrocking him, but apparently they hadn’t delayed for as long as I had thought. https://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jimmy-swaggart/