Statement to the Allegheny County Council in Opposition to
the Homosexual “Non-Discrimination” Bill No. 4201-08
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Jan. 16,
2008
For a printer-friendly PDF file go
here
Dear Council members,
I speak in opposition to
the “sexual orientation non-discrimination” Bill No. 4201-08. As a
professor of New Testament at a seminary here in Pittsburgh, I have
published about 1000 pages of material on the Bible and homosexuality and
on related issues involving reason, science, and government policy (for
references to books, articles, and encyclopedia entries, as well as online
material, go to
www.robgagnon.net).
This “sexual orientation”
bill not only promotes immoral behavior; it also does not protect people
from being fined, fired, having their free-speech rights abridged, or
otherwise discriminated against for not wanting to do anything that
promotes immorality. Imagine what damage would be done to civil freedoms
if an ordinance were passed “establishing a countywide nondiscrimination
requirement in housing, employment, and other contexts” regarding persons
with a self-affirmed polysexual orientation—a desire for sexual
intercourse with more than one sexual partner concurrently—along with the
establishment of a “human rights commission” to assign fines. The same
kind of damage is being done with this bill. It assaults people’s
consciences and ends up destroying, rather than furthering, basic civil
liberties.
What Jesus Teaches Us
Many speakers for this
bill have referred to Jesus’ outreach to sexual outcasts as a basis for
support of homosexual unions. I can assure you that all the evidence
indicates Jesus’ acceptance of the universal condemnation of homosexual
practice that prevailed in early Judaism. True, Jesus did reach out in
love to sexual sinners, as well as to economically exploitative tax
collectors of his day. Yet he did so not to affirm their sinful behavior
but rather to recover such persons for God’s kingdom by calling them out
of such behavior. To the sinful woman caught in adultery he said, “Go and
from now on no longer be sinning” (John 8:11). A similar remark in John
5:14 makes clear Jesus’ train of thought: “No longer be sinning lest
something worse happen to you.”
Jesus based his view that
marriage should be between two and only two persons, whether concurrently
or serially, on the ‘twoness’ of the sexes, citing
back-to-back Genesis 1:27 (“male and female he [God] made them”)
and Gen 2:24 (“For this reason a man shall … be joined to his woman
[or: wife] and the two shall become one flesh”; Mark 10:5-9; Matthew
19:4-9). According to Jesus, the fact that God designed humans for
sexual union “male and female” is the foundation for limiting sexual
unions to two persons. The
logic appears to be: Bringing together the two, and only two, primary
sexes ordained by God at creation establishes a self-contained, holistic
union on the sexual spectrum that admits of no third party.
We know that this
was Jesus’ rationale because a similar rationale was used by the Jewish
sectarian group known as the Qumran Essenes.
Thus Jesus predicated his view of marital monogamy on the foundation of a
male-female prerequisite for sexual unions. As we all know, the foundation
(here a male-female prerequisite) is more important than the
superstructure built upon it (here a limitation of sexual unions to two
persons). Whereas most supporters of this bill view polygamous unions as
worse than homosexual unions, Jesus held the reverse view inasmuch as an
absolute (no-exceptions) opposition to polygamy can only be justified by
an appeal to the complementary duality of “male and female” in sexual
pairing.
The Best
Analogies and What’s Wrong with Homosexual Practice
Supporters of this bill
compare homosexual orientation with ethnicity as an inherently benign
condition. The analogy doesn’t work. Ethnicity is a feature of human
existence that is 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily
non-behavioral, and therefore inherently benign. Homosexual orientation is
a sexual impulse—ethnicity is not an impulse—at a given period in a
person’s life. Unlike ethnicity it not 100% heritable (there may be
congenital influences but it is far from a deterministic mechanism), open
to some change (at least in its level of intensity and often also in its
degree of exclusivity), primarily behavioral (it is a desire to do
something), and therefore not inherently benign.
The logic of a “one
flesh” heterosexual bond is clear: The two sexes unite to form a single
sexual whole; one unites with what one isn’t sexually, a male with a
female, a female with a male. The logic of male homosexual bonds is that
two half males unite to form a single whole male; and of female homosexual
bonds that two half females unite to form a single whole female. In other
words, those who participate in homosexual unions logically treat
themselves not as half of a whole sexual spectrum but half of their own
particular sex or gender.
This is why Paul in his
letter to the Romans refers to homosexual practice as a “dishonoring” of
the participants (1:24-27). Treating one’s maleness (if male) as only half
intact, needing not just social affirmation but structural supplementation
by merging with another of the same sex, amounts to a dishonoring of
the sexual self. Committing oneself to a long-term homosexual bond
merely regularizes the misperception that someone of the same sex is a
proper sexual complement to oneself.
This is partly sexual
self-deception inasmuch as one’s sex or gender is already intact. But
it is also a form of sexual narcissism, inasmuch as the person is
aroused by the distinctive features of his or her own sex: a male sexually
aroused by the essence of maleness, a female sexually aroused by the
essence of femaleness.
The disproportionately
high rate of measurable problems that attend homosexual unions—higher
numbers of sex partners over the course of life and higher rates of
sexually transmitted infections, particularly for homosexual males; and
lower rates of relational longevity and higher rates of mental health
issues, particularly for homosexual females—are the result of the absence
of a true sexual complement. In the homosexual union the extremes of a
given sex are not moderated and the gaps in the sexual self are not
filled. For public health and morality reasons this is not the kind of
behavior that society should wish to promote.
Much closer analogies to
homosexual relations than ethnicity are adult-committed forms of incest
(say, between an adult child and parent or between two adult siblings) and
polyamory (3 or more sex partners concurrently). The rule for prohibiting
incest, even consensual and adult-committed forms, arises analogically
from a rule for prohibiting homosexual practice; namely, too little
structural or embodied complementarity among the participants. Excessive
sameness is more keenly and clearly felt in the case of same sex or gender
(same-sex intercourse); then, secondarily, in the case of kinship
proximity (incest). In both cases inherent procreative
difficulties—whether a structural incapacity to procreate in homosexual
relationships or a higher risk for birth defects in incestuous
relationships—manifest symptoms of the root problem of too much embodied
sameness.
As noted above,
polysexuality (polygamy) violates the principle of the twoness or duality
of the sexes implicit in a male-female union. If the Council wants to be
consistent it should equally protect from societal “discrimination” adults
who want to be in a committed incestuous union or in a committed sexual
union involving three or more persons, since neither of these offenses is
as severe as the offense to the foundation itself, namely, the
complementary male-female character of sexual relations.
The Moral
Bankruptcy of a Born-That-Way Argument
The argument that “people
are born that way” is irrelevant as a moral argument, not only because
science has not demonstrated an inevitable, deterministic mechanism for
homosexual development given at birth but also because all behavior, good
and bad, is traceable at some level to human biology. As acknowledged even
by two prominent researchers of genetic causation factors in homosexual
development—researchers whom, I might add, are supportive of homosexual
unions—“No clear conclusions about
the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of biological
causation, because all behavior is biologically caused.”
The Threat that
This Bill Poses to Our Civil Liberties
By passing this so-called
“nondiscrimination” bill you would actually increase discrimination and
inhibit basic rights of speech and self-expression on the part of those
who rightly and lovingly believe homosexual practice to be immoral. We
have too much evidence of how these “human rights commissions” operate in
Canada, Europe, and even parts of the United States not to know that such
commissions regularly and radically infringe on the civil liberties of
others. Exemptions for “religious” institutions hardly address the issue
since the vast preponderance of persons of faith operate in secular
venues.
-
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission
just this past year ordered a female photographer to pay over $6000 to a
lesbian couple for declining to photograph their commitment ceremony on
the grounds that it violated her Christian beliefs.
-
Also this past year an African-American
woman Crystal Dixon was removed from her position as associate vice
president for human resources at the University of Toledo simply because
she wrote an editorial in a newspaper saying that homosexual behavior
should not be compared to being black.
-
Rolf Szabo, Richard Peterson, Kenneth
Gee, Annie Coffey-Montes, and Albert Buonanno were all fired from their
corporate or government jobs in the United States for not wanting to
“celebrate” at their work station “sexual orientation” diversity.
-
A national Christian dating service (Harmony.com)
was dragged into several years of litigation by the state of New Jersey
for not providing services for homosexual partnering, until finally, out
of financial desperation, the company capitulated to the state a couple
of months ago.
-
A Christian ministry in New Jersey has
been subject to state investigation for refusing to allow a lesbian
civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property.
-
A community college professor in
California, June Sheldon, was fired for leading a brief discussion on
the nature vs. nurture debate as regards homosexuality.
-
Also in California a doctor was sued for
declining to artificially inseminate a woman in a lesbian relationship
(or, for that matter, any non-married heterosexual).
-
In Georgia a counselor was fired just for
referring a lesbian woman to another counselor for relationship advice.
-
The Boy Scouts in Boston were no longer
allowed free use of city facilities as a result of their policy against
having scout leaders attracted to the same sex; they now had to pay tens
of thousands of dollars to use the same facilities that they previously
paid not a cent for.
-
Catholic Charities of Boston had to get
out of the adoption business because it did not want to place children
with persons engaged in a homosexual relationship.
-
In New York City a school of medicine
under Orthodox Jewish auspices was forced to rent married housing to
homosexual couples under a “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law,
while in California a Lutheran high school was sued for expelling two
girls in a lesbian relationship.
-
In Canada a public school teacher, Chris
Kempling, was suspended from his job and fined thousands of dollars by a
Human Rights Commission (plus incurred tens of thousands of dollars of
legal bills) for writing a letter to a newspaper saying that we should
love homosexual persons but not provide state endorsement of their
behavior. Kempling was hounded for years until he finally had to quit
his position in the public school system, all for expressing views
outside his place of employment. Others fined thousands of dollars by
‘Inquisition’ commissions include: Scott Brockie, a printer who refused
to print materials for a homosexual event that he regarded as immoral;
Hugh Owens for putting an ad in a newspaper stating that homosexual
practice was wrong; a Knights of Columbus chapter for not allowing their
hall to be used as for a lesbian wedding reception; Father Alphonse de
Valk and Catholic Insight Magazine for speaking against
homosexual behavior; Bill Whatcott, a Catholic activist, for producing
pamphlets that called homosexual practice immoral (Whatcott was also
“banned for life” from criticizing homosexuality); Stephen Boisson, a
pastor, for a letter to a newspaper denouncing homosexual practice as
immoral (also ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexual
practice in any public forum). Moreover, an evangelical ministry to the
disabled was fined $23,000 for not hiring a homosexual employee and its
management and employees ordered to undergo a homosexualist “human
rights training program.”
-
In England just this year Anthony Priddis,
an Anglican Bishop, was fined the equivalent of nearly $100,000 and
ordered to undergo “equal opportunities training” for refusing to hire a
practicing homosexual as a youth worker for the diocese. Also in
England: Graham Cogman, a police officer, was fired this year for
expressing his conviction that homosexual practice was immoral.
On and on one could go
with such examples of abuse, with people losing jobs or being fined
thousands of dollars for failing to endorse homosexual behavior. Employers
would be compelled to subsidize homosexual behavior through marriage-like
medical benefits. In order to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits
employers would feel obligated to institute “affirmative action” programs
for “GLBT” persons and promote events that celebrate “sexual orientation
diversity” in the workplace, while effectively ostracizing, demoting, or
firing any workers who in good conscience cannot accept the promotion
of a homosexual lifestyle.
Since the proposed bill
includes “gender identity or expression” companies could be sued for not
allowing a man who believes that he is a woman from using a woman’s
restroom. Moreover, any predator can claim that enter a woman’s restroom
under the pretense that he identifies himself as a woman. Indeed, the
whole idea of special protections for “gender identity” and “sexual
orientation” is ripe for legal abuse since, unlike being black or a woman,
these are not visibly identifiable traits but claimed self-perceptions
that employers can only guess at or take the employee’s word for.
School children from
kindergarten up also face mandatory indoctrination regarding the alleged
acceptability of homosexual practice and transgenderism through mandatory
“gay day” celebrations, required reading of homosexualist literature,
classroom presentations by “GLBT” groups, and writing assignments that
affect academic standing. These developments have already taken place in
Massachusetts and California under “sexual orientation nondiscrimination
law.” Children are impressionable.
Some scientific
studies suggest that cultural influences can affect the incidence of
homosexuality per se, and not just self-identification as “gay” or
“lesbian.” For example, the prestigious 1992 National Health and Social
Life Survey put out mainly by University of Chicago researchers, suggested
that “an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer
negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even
elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior.”
In Conclusion…
This bill makes
persecuted bigots of everyone who has moral, philosophical, sociological,
or religious objections to homosexual practice. It creates an official
state sanctioning of homosexual practice and is every bit as misguided, or
more so, as passing a bill outlawing “discrimination” against persons in a
polygamous union or persons in an adult-committed relationship with a
close blood relation.
I urge you to refrain
from instituting such an Inquisition here in Pittsburgh and instead to
respect the rights of those who believe that homosexual practice is
immoral. Thank you.
For further materials
go to
www.robgagnon.net and see especially:
“More than Mutual Joy:
Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus”
(http://robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm)
A half hour video on
“What the Bible Says about Homosexuality” at
http://www.vimeo.com/2126309
“An Open Letter to a University President regarding the
Suspension of a Black Female Administrator Who Challenged a Comparison
between Homosexual Practice and Being Black”
(http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexToledoPresident.pdf)
“How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture and
Does Scripture’s Indictment Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?”
(http://robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm)
“Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties
in the Workplace” (http://robgagnon.net/ENDA.htm)
“Letter
to an Evangelical Leader on Exploring ‘Gay Rights’”
(http://robgagnon.net/GayRightsLetterToEvangLeader.htm)
“Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on
Homosexual Practice?”
(http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf)
“The Threat of the
Homosexual Agenda to Your Freedoms” (http://robgagnon.net/HomosexualAgenda.htm)