Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and
Scripture
A
Response to Peterson and Hedlund’s
“Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church”
Part I: Introduction and General Response
by
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament,
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
gagnon@pts.edu
© 2005
Robert A. J. Gagnon
I.
Introduction
In 2004 Charles R. Peterson (M.D., a
retired physician) and Douglas A. Hedlund (M.D., a psychiatrist) wrote a
very nasty and distorted online critique of my book The Bible and
Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press, 2001),
with a secondary focus (equally nasty and distorted) on work by Dr. Roy
Harrisville III (Executive Director of Solid Rock Lutherans), Dr. Merton
P. Strommen (author of The Church and Homosexuality: Searching for a
Middle Ground [Kirk House, 2001]), and Rev. Russell E. Saltzman
(editor of Forum Letter). Essentially Peterson and Hedlund accuse
me and the aforementioned, repeatedly and explicitly, of being unethical,
hateful, and lacking in integrity in talking about what Scripture and
science have to say about homosexuality. However, the only way that they
can make such an accusation stick is by misrepresenting not only what I
say about Scripture and science on homosexuality but also what Scripture
and science do in fact tell us.
Their “Critique” is the second and main
portion of their essay entitled “Heterosexism, Health, and the Church.”
The Critique is divided into a part 1 on science and a part 2 on
Scripture, followed by a “Discussion” and “Conclusions.” For those
interested, their critique can be accessed in its various parts at:
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc2.html for part 1 (on science)
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html for part 2 (on
Scripture)
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc4.html for “Discussion”
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc5.html for “Conclusions”
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/end.html for end notes
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/abstract.html for the abstract
http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/abbr.html for the “Critique
Abbreviated”
There is also a “History Paper” section
which, though also distorted, is of less relevance.
Part 1 of my response deals
generally with Peterson and Hedlund’s Critique.
Part 2 puts a magnifying glass
over the first part of their Critique, the section covering science, and
specifically pp. 1-7, where the greatest attempt to misrepresent my work
is made. Here they treat what I allegedly say in my first book, The
Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press,
2001) as regards four main rubrics: “1. The inherent pathology of
homosexuality”; “2. The problem of pedophilia”; “3. Sexual promiscuity”;
and “4. Serious health problems associated with homosexuality.” I show
how, in each of these sections, they distort what I say about scientific
studies, give little indication that they understand my arguments, and
ignore significant research that contradicts their premises.
Part 3 assesses the second part
of their Critique, the section covering Scripture. If you come to the
conclusion that their work on the scientific evidence is not done well
overall, stick around: Their interpretation of Scripture is even worse.
What is striking is their arrogance in repeatedly accusing me of
distorting the biblical text under the motivation of “heterosexism” when
over and over they show how little grasp they have of the biblical text in
its theological and historical context. Most of the time it is clear that
they have not even read thoroughly what I have said on a given subject.
What they have read they have generally misrepresented. Of particular note
in this critique is a relatively concise layout of how we know that St.
Paul’s indictment of homosexual practice included (a) committed homosexual
unions and (b) those with some congenital predisposition to homosexual
practice.
II. Overall Characterization of
Their Critique
Responding to critiques of the kind
produced by Peterson and Hedlund is always difficult and unpleasant
because of the level of misrepresentation and the personal, hurtful nature
of the attack. I generally find that there is an inverse relationship
here: the more heat that such critiques produce, the less light they
generate. To put it more plainly: the less weighty the argumentation, the
more caustic the rhetoric. This is what I have come to expect from critics
who paint themselves as “tolerant,” “loving,” and “inclusive”: lots of
inflammatory name calling. On this score Peterson and Hedlund don’t
disappoint.
What they have produced is essentially a
piece of hate literature that is even inaccurate in portraying what they
hate. I suppose that there is some benefit to have such rhetoric out in
the open before the ELCA and other mainline denominations might change
their position on homosexual practice. For after a change is made, those
who continue to uphold Scripture can expect the same hostility, only now
with institutional teeth to go after those with whom they disagree.
As wearisome as it is to read and
respond to such attacks, it is often necessary to do so in order that
others might not be taken in and deceived. Although their article
generates occasional points that are worthy of discussion (not necessarily
agreement), on the whole their critique is a pastiche of inflammatory
rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, unintelligible “representations” of
the logic of my arguments, ignoring or simply not reading the defenses of
positions as given, ignoring significant studies that contradict their
views (even those cited in my book), quotations taken out of context,
half-truths, and even outright falsehoods about what I allegedly say or
don’t say.
Peterson and Hedlund attempt to justify
this style of writing on p. 1 of their “Discussion”:
Some theologians in this group we
critiqued may object that this summary is not representative of one or
another’s individual’s view. But we think our conflation is reasonable for
discussion because . . . [readers] will extrapolate even more inaccurate
conclusions from [their stance].
In other words, because readers may draw
“even more inaccurate conclusions” from Gagnon et al.’s works than we
have, our own inaccurate conclusions are permissible. That is not a very
high standard for accuracy. As bad as their reasoning is, the results are
worse, for I have encountered no one more inaccurate and just plain
mean-spirited in “representing” my work than Peterson and Hedlund. To be
sure, I have encountered some who are equally or nearly so, such as
Prof. David Balch,
Prof. Walter Wink,
Prof. William Countryman, and
Eric Thurman, but still no one more so. Hence, Peterson and Hedlund
have no reason to fear that readers will be more inaccurate than they.
That base they have covered well.
They go on:
We acknowledge that in attempting to
critique about one thousand pages of writing in less than thirty pages,
our representation of those critiqued is less than perfect. But we have
attempted to be fair in representing important points well enough to give
what we think is better balance to the discussion, especially as it
relates to scientific evidence relevant to the health of gay and lesbian
persons.
The admission that they have produced a
“less than perfect” “representation of those critiqued” is certainly an
understatement. This new justification, namely that they had “less than
thirty pages” to do the critique (the total of all the parts is actually
about 40 pages, but let’s not quibble), is not the reason for this most
imperfect product. Page after page of inaccuracy and outright
maliciousness cannot be corrected by more pages of the same. It can only
be corrected by a change of heart and mind.
The last sentence of the block quote
suggests that the authors think they have done their best and most
accurate work in critiquing our work on the scientific evidence: “we have
attempted to be fair . . . especially as it relates to scientific
evidence.” They are certainly right to recognize the less than fully
satisfactory quality of their Scripture work—though, of course, their
recognition doesn’t go far enough. However, their lack of expertise cannot
excuse their distortions in working with Scripture since even non-experts
are expected to read carefully, to represent accurately the views that
they read, and to acknowledge when their counterarguments are already
addressed by the person whom they seek to criticize. Unfortunately, their
work with scientific research and their representation of what I have to
say on the subject of science and homosexuality are not much better than
their Scripture work.
III. A Summary of Their Position
and My Response
As I read the position of Peterson and
Hedlund I see basically six elements to their Critique:
-
The only problem with homosexual behavior is its typical
promiscuity.
-
It is this promiscuity, along with societal homophobia,
that is the primary source of homosexual health ills. The primary fault
for homosexual promiscuity is ecclesiastical and societal “heterosexism”
against homosexual persons, which I, Harrisville, Strommen, Saltzman,
and persons like us allegedly promote in the Lutheran context. If church
and society grant homosexual persons the right to marry and encourage
them toward monogamy, fidelity, and lifelong commitment, the problem of
homosexual promiscuity with its negative effects on the health of
homosexual persons will be largely solved.
-
Since few, if any, homosexual persons can radically
change their sexual orientation, it is immoral and cruel to continue to
uphold an other-sex requirement for marriage.
-
Gagnon, Strommen, and Harrisville have, in an unethical
manner, deliberately distorted what science has to say on the subject,
selectively misreading and misrepresenting the data to suit their own
heterosexist inclination and making it seem as if there is something
endemic to homosexuality itself, something other than heterosexism, that
could be the prime cause of homosexual unhealth.
-
Gagnon has distorted what Scripture has to say on the
subject of homosexual practice, making it seem as if the writers of
Scripture were opposed to committed homosexual unions engaged in by
homosexually inclined persons when in fact they opposed only
exploitative same-sex relations committed by heterosexually inclined
persons.
-
Anyone who disagrees with these points is a bigoted
“heterosexist” who holds a
“restrictive” position.
In response I make the following points
(corresponding to the point numbers above):
-
The primary problem with homosexual behavior is not
its typical promiscuity but its distorted homosexual aspect; namely,
sexual arousal for, and merger with, the sex that one already shares in
common; that is, treating a sexual same as one’s sexual counterpart when
God formed man and woman as complementary sexual counterparts.
-
The disproportionately high rates of relational and
health problems associated with homosexual behavior—incidentally,
rates that differ significantly for homosexual males and homosexual
females—are mostly attributable to basic biological differences
between men and women, the healthy interaction of which is absent
from same-sex erotic unions. Endorsement of homosexual unions would
achieve only modest improvement of homosexual relational and health
problems and would do so at a much higher price to church and society.
-
The degree to which a desire is biologically caused
and resistant to change carries no inherent moral implications,
since (a) all desires are biologically caused and (b) many that are
highly resistant to change are rejected on moral grounds even in the
absence of intrinsic, measurable harm. This includes strong sexual
attractions for structurally incompatible (but not intrinsically
harmful) sexual unions. Jesus and New Testament authors call on persons
to put to death deeply ingrained desires even at the cost of a
significant feeling of deprivation. Change is a multifaceted concept
that for some will involve the elimination of unwanted desires but for
most will entail not coming under their behavioral sway. It is cruel
to provide incentives for persons to engage in a form of behavior that
(a) carries disproportionately high health risks, (b) likely will lead
to an increase in persons oriented to such behavior, and (c) will,
according to Scripture, put people at risk of not inheriting an eternal
place with God.
-
It is Peterson and Hedlund who have manipulated the
interpretation of scientific data to reach a desired ideological
outcome. Contrary to what Peterson and Hedlund argue, scientific
data does not support the conclusion that higher levels of mental health
problems are primarily attributable to societal moral discomfort with
homosexual behavior. Nor does it support the conclusion that the high
numbers of lifetime sex partners and the high rates of sexually
transmitted disease on the part of male homosexuals—neither of which
problems afflicts homosexual women to nearly the same degree—are
primarily due to societal “homophobia.” Nor does the scientific data
support the conclusion that homosexual development is as unrelated to
pedophilia as heterosexual development. Nor does the scientific data
establish that no amount of societal variables or individual
circumstances has any impact on homosexual development. Peterson and
Hedlund not only misrepresent and ignore studies incompatible with their
ideological convictions, they also misrepresent and ignore arguments
that I make for which they have no good response.
-
Peterson and Hedlund consistently distort what
Scripture has to say about homosexual practice in its historical and
cultural context and what I have to say about such matters. This
includes their view of the creation stories as having no bearing on
homosexual practice; their claim that the Sodom and Gibeah narratives
show disfavor only for coercive same-sex sexual acts committed by
heterosexuals; their claim that there is no evidence that Jesus would
have been strongly opposed to homosexual practice; or their claim that
Paul was opposed only to particularly exploitative forms of homosexual
practice and/or homosexual behavior engaged in by heterosexuals. They
consistently distort the fact that Scripture’s other-sex structural
requirement for sexual relations is second only to an inter-human
(non-bestial) requirement as a core or foundational value for sexual
ethics; that ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity
exhibited the strongest, most pervasive, and most absolute opposition to
homosexual practice of any known culture in the ancient Near East or the
Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin.
-
Peterson and Hedlund portray those who disagree with
their views as “heterosexist,” a term that parallels the bigotry of a
racist. The term is as absurd as calling those who maintain a monogamy
standard “monosexists,” or those who maintain an age requirement
“teleiosexists” (teleios = full grown, mature, adult), or
those who require a certain degree of blood unrelatedness “exosexists”
(exo = outside, here as in “outside the family”), or those who
require sex only within the human species “anthrosexist” (anthropos
= human). We rightly recognize these other terms as ludicrous
because each of the standards being maintained are requirements for
structural congruity that are creation- and Scripture-based. So too the
opposition to homosexual practice. The whole comparison with race or sex
is misguided. For example, race is an intrinsically benign, absolutely
immutable, and primarily non-behavioral condition. Sexual desires are
not intrinsically benign. They are not absolutely immutable to cultural
influences and individual life experiences. And, as impulses, they are
oriented toward specific sexual behaviors.
Peterson and Hedlund also like to throw around as a
slur against those who accept Scripture’s clear witness the label
“restrictive (Christians).” Think about the use of such a term.
Do we as a church want to reach the regressive point where we strive for
“inclusivity” as regards permitting all sorts of sexual behaviors?
“Inclusivity” and “diversity” are grossly misplaced values when it comes
to defining acceptable sexual behavior. Jesus himself is the prime
example of someone who worked to further limit the already carefully
circumscribed sexual ethic given to him in the Hebrew Bible. He was no
“inclusivist” as regards sexual standards. But, apparently, that is the
prime rubric that Peterson and Hedlund want to adopt for the church’s
stance on sexual behavior. Not holiness. Not conformity to God’s will as
expressed in creation and reiterated by Jesus and followed by the
apostolic leaders of the church. Christians who reject homosexual
practice do so because to do otherwise would be an “immoralist” act,
not because they value being “restrictive” or discriminatory in a
prejudicial sense. Peterson and Hedlund are not sexual libertines. But
the categories that they use to tar those with whom they disagree are
morally and spiritually bankrupt. They are immoralist categories when
applied to sexual ethics.
The remaining part of this essay will
expand on the first four points made above.
IV. Overlooking the Core Problem of
Structural Incompatibility
Contrary to Peterson and Hedlund, the
first and most significant problem with homosexual practice is not its
typical promiscuity. Rather, it is the structurally incompatible character
of merging two people who are already of the same sex. This is an erotic
attraction for what one already is as a sexual being and a denial of the
reality that man and woman are the two and only two complementary halves
of a sexual whole. This sexual attraction is narcissistic if one realizes
that it is for the distinctive features of one’s own sex and
self-deceptive if one does not realize it. Increasing the commitment to
such a bond merely increases the commitment to a form of union that is
contrary to nature and, from a scriptural perspective, contrary to God’s
revealed will in creation. Whatever gains might be made in the number of
partners lifetime or in relational longevity (which would be minimal at
best, as noted below) would be bought at the cost of violating an even
more foundational requirement of sexual relationships. The primary problem
with homosexual behavior is no more its typical promiscuity than is the
potential for birth defects the primary problem with adult incest or
jealousy the primary problem with polyamorous unions. A long-term
homosexual union merely regularizes the deception of viewing and
treating a person of the same sex as one’s appropriate sexual counterpart.
Modern secular societies, to say nothing
of religious ones, retain the notion that sexual relationships must meet
special structural criteria; that is, objective facets of congruity or
complementarity that are grounded in nature or physical makeup and that
transcend positive dispositions of the heart or mind and even positive
behaviors. These include considerations of consanguinity (i.e., no sexual
relations with close blood relations), number (i.e., a limitation to one
partner at a time), age (no sex with children), and species (no sex with
animals). There is a need for multiple levels of structural correspondence
between sexual partners.
It is not enough to emphasize the
presence of love and commitment in a sexual bond and the absence of
scientifically measurable harm or exploitation in all bonds of a given
type. Indeed, neither the universal absence of love nor the universal
presence of scientifically measurable harm can be demonstrated for any of
the above. For non-religious folk it suffices to combine an intuitive
nature argument with scientific evidence of a disproportionately high rate
of problems attending that genre of relationships. For Christians (to
speak to our religious heritage) such arguments are combined with one yet
more decisive: the witness of God’s word in Scripture, particularly as
carried over in the New Testament.
Biological sex (gender) has a just claim
to being a foundational criterion for valid sexual unions, the basis or
analogical model for others. If committed multiple-partner unions and
incestuous unions are unacceptable, then committed homosexual unions
should be even more problematic. For the twoness of human sexual
relations, on which a prohibition of polygamy is based, is predicated on
the deep structure of two sexes. Moreover, the structural requirement of
complementary difference, on which a prohibition of incest is based, is
more keenly disclosed in sexual differentiation than in blood
unrelatedness. Dissolving a two-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions
strikes at the heart of whether there should be any requirement of
deep structural compatibility between prospective sexual partners that
takes its cue from the material structures of creation and transcends the
issue of personal affections. For at the heart of all sexual practice is
the sex (gender) of the participants. Because there are two sexes and
because two sexes are structurally complementary at many levels, a given
individual, by virtue of belonging to only one of these two sexes,
interacts sexually as only one incomplete part of a two-part sexual whole.
On the crucial level of sex (gender), one’s structural complement or
counterpart can only be a person of the other sex. There is no escaping
the rational basis in nature for this conclusion. When one perceives union
with a sexual same as an avenue for completion of the sexual self, the
integrity of one’s sex is implicitly denied.
V. Misplacing the Blame for Harm
While it is possible that “gay marriage”
might bring some moderate improvement in monogamy and longevity to a
fraction of homosexual relationships, evidence to date does not encourage
the view that a fundamental shift of behavior would occur. Significantly
different levels of problems between male homosexual unions and female
homosexual unions—for example, higher numbers of partners and sexually
transmitted disease among the former and shorter-term relationships and a
higher incidence of mental health problems among the latter—suggests
rather that disproportionately high rates of harm are traceable in large
measure to basic biological differences between men and women. Notice
again that I don’t say inherent or intrinsic, scientifically measurable
harm (as Peterson and Hedlund falsely claim that I say) but rather
disproportionately high rates that are the product of inherent or
intrinsic deficiencies in homosexual unions, specifically in combining two
persons of the same sex rather than combining one person of each of the
two sexes. Male-female biological differences contribute markedly to the
health of heterosexual unions. In a sexual bond between persons of the
same sex the extremes of a given sex are not moderated and true gaps are
not filled. To continuously call marriage what almost certainly will not
be monogamous and of twenty-years duration or more (let alone
lifelong) can only have a long-term cheapening effect on the institution
of marriage. All this is spelled out in greater detail in Part 2 of our
essay.
In addition, this cheapening effect on
the institution of marriage would be reinforced by the effective
elimination of structural prerequisites for marriage that transcend both
mutual commitment and an inability to prove inherent, measurable harm.
This would leave society with little justification for holding the line
against other forms of committed sexual relationships for which at most
only a disproportionately high level of harm, but not universal harm,
could be surmised: various kinds of polyamorous relationships, incest,
adult-adolescent relationships, and perhaps even adult-child relationships
and bestiality. Proponents of homosexual marriage may protest that they
are not advocating such unions. Yet the logic of their position moves to
that ultimate outcome.
The little information that currently
exists regarding the cultural effects of homosexual marriage does not
encourage much optimism. First, the rate of homosexual persons taking
advantage of current domestic partnership laws or even civil marriage is
too small to effect a significant change of behavior in the homosexual
population. For example, although homosexual activists had been clamoring
for “gay marriage” for over a decade in the Netherlands, only 3% of adult
homosexual persons and only one out of ten homosexual couples were married
in the first three years that homosexual marriage was available
(2001-2004). Whatever the motivations of its proponents, “gay marriage”
ends up being more about validating the homosexual life than about
strengthening marriage or domesticating homosexual unions. Second, a
series of articles mostly published in National Review in 2004 by
Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained social anthropologist and fellow at the
Hoover Institution, show that the introduction of same-sex registered
partnerships or homosexual marriage in Scandinavia and the European
lowland countries has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock
births. This is not surprising given that the validation of homosexual
unions depends on rhetoric that ultimately decouples marriage from the
raising of children. Supporting homosexual practice would also likely
encourage an increase in homosexual self-identification, homosexual
practice, and even homosexuality itself (see VI. below).
Another unwanted impact of “gay
marriage” for Christians would be to encourage civil and religious
intolerance of those who uphold Scripture’s core prerequisite of two sexes
in a sexual union. Although supporters of homosexual unions preach
tolerance and diversity, the political and religious agenda of most in the
movement suggests otherwise. Developments in northern Europe, Canada, and
even parts of the United States indicate that civil approval of homosexual
relationships brings along a wave of intolerance toward those who publicly
express disapproval of homosexual practice (see Alan Sears and Craig
Osten, The Homosexual Agenda [Nashville, 2003]). Penalties in some
Western countries already range from fines, to loss of employment, to even
incarceration. Christian colleges and seminaries that have policies
against homosexual practice or allow faculty to teach against it will one
day risk losing their tax-exempt status, access to federal grants and
student loans, and ultimately accreditation itself. Public schools will
intensify their indoctrination of children into the acceptability of
homosexual unions from kindergarten on and single out for marginalization
and ridicule any who question this agenda. Parents’ rights in instilling
moral values in their children will be abridged. Indeed, the state could
remove self-professed gay and lesbian children from parents who express
moral disapproval of homosexual practice on the pretense of “child abuse.”
Mainline denominations will comply with societal trends by refusing to
ordain “heterosexists” and even disciplining heterosexist clergy. Since
approval of homosexual practice can only occur at the cost of
marginalizing Scripture, the trend will be toward a hard-left
radicalization of mainline denominations.
VI. Making a God out of Intense and
Persistent Sexual Desires
Sexual orientation is merely the
directedness of sexual desire at any given period in a person’s life—no
more, no less. It is not a God. If a person has a sexual orientation that
violates structural prerequisites for sexual activity, then it is the
gratification of the orientation that must give way, not the structural
prerequisites ordained by the Creator as attested in Scripture and still
perceptible in nature even to the unredeemed. This is not to make light of
the deprivation experienced by such persons but rather to take seriously
God’s creation of male and female in his image and his will for that
creation. There are surely at least as many people (especially men) who
experience dissatisfaction with monogamy that is as intense, and as
“hard-wired,” as any dissatisfaction with other-sex partners experienced
by homosexual persons. Certainly, too, a pedophilic orientation is no less
intense and resistant to change than a homosexual orientation. A
‘polysexual’ person and a ‘pedosexual’ person feel the deprivation imposed
by church and society every bit as keenly as a homosexual person. And if
it were ever discovered that some persons have a deeply rooted orientation
to incest, would that be sufficient grounds to validate man-mother or
woman-brother sexual unions, particularly since universal measurable harm
cannot be demonstrated in all circumstances for all persons? Hopefully
not.
Orientations to sinful activity, sexual
or otherwise, do not mitigate the sinfulness of the activity. Nor do all
sins produce scientifically measurable harm such as distress in the
participants or an inability to function effectively in society (apart
from societal phobias). The existence of an orientation toward behaviors
that Scripture categorizes as sinful may affect the pastoral response,
inculcating greater sensitivity, patience, and compassion as one
recognizes the persistent character of sexual urges and the need for
long-term oversight if effective management of these urges is to be
achieved. Yet it should not change the evaluation of practice as sinful.
Two researchers supportive of homosexual unions have acknowledged that
biological causation does not determine morality:
Despite common assertions to the contrary,
evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or
policy consequences. To assume that it does logically requires the belief
that some behaviour is non-biologically caused. We believe that this
assumption is irrational because the most proximal cause of behaviour is
neurophysiological, and thus all behavioural differences will on some
level be attributable to differences in brain structure or process. Thus,
no clear conclusions about the morality of a behaviour can be made from
the mere fact of biological causation, because all behaviour is
biologically caused. (B. S. Mustanski and J. M. Bailey, “A therapist’s
guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and
Relationship Therapy 18:4, 2003, p. 432)
The essence of following Jesus is not
the satisfaction of biological urges, no matter how deeply engrained, but
rather taking up one’s cross by denying oneself and losing one’s life
(Mark 8:34-37; Matt 10:39 par. Luke 17:33; Matt 10:38 par. Luke 14:27 par.
Gos. Thom. 55.20; John 12:25). One person’s area of difficult
denial may be homosexual urges; another’s may be intense polyamorous
impulses; another’s may be primary attraction to adolescents or even
prepubescent children; another’s alcoholism and still another’s
selfishness, anger, or gross materialism. No one gets an exemption for
repetitive, self-affirming sinful practices because too much is at stake
in inheriting the kingdom of God. Or so Jesus and the witness of New
Testament authors indicate.
Peterson and Hedlund make much of data
that they allege proves that homosexual persons rarely make radical
changes. The truth is that we don’t how often or how much change is
possible. I think the prospect for change is probably as likely and of the
same kind as that possible for pedophilic dispositions or alcoholism. It
might even be a little more difficult, not because of anything inherent in
homosexual orientation but because in our current cultural climate there
is strong support for “coming out” as “gay and lesbian,” at least among
most of the institutional elite, and strong opposition to ministries and
counseling groups valiantly working to help persons not be enslaved by
desires that are structurally incongruous to God’s creation of two
complementary sexes. (Note here that Peterson and Hedlund frequently limit
my understanding of complementarity to anatomy. If they had read my work
carefully, they would know that I understand anatomical complementarity as
part of, but also emblematic or symbolic of, a broader range of
male-female features that work remarkably well together in a sexual union
involving both sexes.) One of many ironies in Peterson and Hedlund’s
critique is that persons such as they make the work of groups like NARTH
or Exodus International that much more difficult by their strenuous
opposition and denials of substantive change. Why bother changing when one
receives so much cultural support nowadays for expressing homosexual
attractions?
For a more reliable assessment of sexual
reorientation therapy than the one provided by Peterson and Hedlund, who
have no personal dealings with such, see the work of Dr. Warren
Throckmorton, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College
and past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association.
Throckmorton has produced articles on the subject published in the
Journal of Mental Health Counseling (1998) and in Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice (2002). These articles and other
resources are available on his website at
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/. For example, see the piece “Reorientation
Redux” which compares the study by Spitzer documenting successes in
reorientation therapy, which Peterson and Hedlund largely dismiss, and the
study by Shidlo and Schroeder alleging significant harm done by
reorientation therapy, which Peterson and Hedlund hold up as a model study
of scientific objectivity.
[Proponents of homosexual practice] cannot
logically dismiss Dr. Spitzer’s study unless they are prepared to dismiss
the Shidlo and Schroeder study of people harmed by reorientation therapy.
Essentially, they are similar studies but with different groups of people.
Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder used no control groups and stated publicly that
they were looking for people to document the damage of “homophobic
therapies.” Dr. Spitzer deliberately looked for people who said they were
helped and had changed. Furthermore, the Shidlo and Schroeder study took
five years to find 176 people who were willing to say that they were
harmed; it took Dr. Spitzer two years to find his 200 participants.
If one is concerned about objectivity, one could make a case that Dr.
Spitzer’s study has an advantage. Dr. Spitzer is historically associated
with the American Psychiatric Association’s action to discontinue seeing
homosexuality as a mental disorder. He favors gay civil rights. He had no
ideological rationale to distort his perceptions or his findings. Drs.
Shidlo and Schroeder are gay psychologists who set out to find what they
found. Even so, I do not dispute the potential for certain practices to
cause harm. Why do opponents of reorientation continue to dispute the word
of people who say they have been helped by seeking change?
. . . I have to wonder why the APA made policy regarding reorientation
therapy in the absence of data. If one doubts that the APA acted in this
manner, consider what Drs Shidlo and Schroeder said in their 2002
Professional Psychology article about the APA’s position regarding
reorientation therapy: “This position [the APA position on reorientation
therapy] is consistent with theoretical and clinical arguments echoed in
the writings of several clinicians . . . but lacks the support of a
systematic base of empirical data. No large-scale study has been made with
the specific goal of looking at the harmfulness of conversion therapies.
The current investigation seeks to remedy that.” The position came first,
the data thereafter.
Let us return to my point that the
prospect for change in homosexual orientation is probably as likely and of
the same kind as that possible for pedophilic dispositions or alcoholism.
The goal for Alcoholics Anonymous or for therapists who counsel those with
sexual attractions toward children is not complete eradication of unwanted
impulses but effective management of the impulses in question. And
sometimes in the process of achieving the latter goal the former, or
something like it, is achieved by the grace of God. But we don’t put a gun
to God’s head, or ours, and insist that he get rid of the sinful impulses
in question or else. Not a single New Testament moral imperative is
predicated on the assumption that believers first lose all innate desires
to violate the imperative in question. St. Paul understood the secret of
being content in all circumstances. He recognized, as in the “thorn in the
flesh” episode, that sometimes God’s answer to prayer requests to deliver
us from difficult physical conditions is often a “No.” “My grace is
sufficient for you, my power is perfected in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). I’m
no masochist but I am continuing to learn in life that sometimes, and
perhaps usually, the greatest opportunity for God to form Christ in me
comes in circumstances when my intense desires go unmet. Change is a
multifaceted phenomenon in the Christian life. Being governed by the
Spirit of Christ rarely involves the complete eradication of sinful
impulses. It always entails their crucifixion, putting to death impulses
whose recompense is spiritual death.
Peterson and Hedlund ignore the point
that I make about change and homosexual orientation when I discuss the
issue in The Bible and Homosexual Practice: “The best hope for
change in the sexual orientation of homosexuals [here meant in terms of
primary eradication of impulses, not the possibility of living in the
Spirit] comes not in attempts to treat homosexuals after years and years
of homosexual behavior but rather in limiting the options that young
people have in terms of sexual experimentation” (p. 429). As I note in my
book, there are many lines of evidence that suggest that macro- and
microcultural factors have a significant impact on the incidence of
homosexuality. For example:
-
Significant
cross-cultural differences in the incidence and forms of
homosexuality have existed over the millennia and even within our own
time between the “first world” and “third world” (cf. David Greenberg,
The Construction of Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1988]).
-
Researchers for the 1992
National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), mostly from the
University of Chicago, found large differences in the incidence of
homosexual self-identification in the United States correlating with
geographical (rural, suburban, urban) and educational variables.
They concluded: “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.” Their study also confirmed that there are significant
differences in the way that men and women respond to cultural stimuli.
See my book, pp. 416-18.
-
Studies have indicated
that the sexual identities of adolescents are less stable than
those of adults (which is also common sense). See, for example, G.
Remafedi, et al., “Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents,”
Pediatrics 89:4 (Apr. 1992): 714-21. Here’s is the authors’
abstract:
This study was undertaken to explore
patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of
Minnesota junior and senior high school students. The sample
included 34,706 students (grades 7 through 12) from diverse
ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic strata. . . . Overall, 10.7% of
students were “unsure” of their sexual orientation; 88.2%
described themselves as predominantly heterosexual; and 1.1%
described themselves as bisexual or predominantly homosexual. .
. . Gender differences were minor; but responses to individual
sexual orientation items varied with age, religiosity,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Uncertainty about sexual orientation
diminished in successively older age groups, with corresponding
increases in heterosexual and homosexual affiliation. The
findings suggest an unfolding of sexual identity during
adolescence, influenced by sexual experience and demographic
factors. (emphasis added)
If adolescents experiment in homosexual
behavior, those whose sexual identity is still somewhat in flux will
probably experience a higher incidence of homosexual proclivity than if
they had never participated in such behavior. We also know now that the
brain rewires in accordance with experiences in life; in short, nurture
can become nature (cf. my book, pp. 398-99).
-
We also know that those
who self-identify as homosexuals are several times more likely to have
experienced sex at an early age, nearly always with an older
male. I discuss this issue at the end of my detailed assessment of the
pedophilia issue below. Suffice it to say here that a causal connection
between early childhood sex with a man and later homosexual development
is a likely explanation for this phenomenon.
-
The work of Bell and
Weinberg indicates that even most exclusive homosexuals (category 6)
have experienced, at one time or another in life, some degree of
heterosexual arousal. This speaks to a degree of elasticity in sexual
desire, which could be elevated or decreased in one direction or the
other depending on macro- and microcultural influences. See my book,
418-20.
-
Research has indicated a
strong correlation between early manifestations of gender
nonconformity and the development of homosexual attraction. Yet even
gender nonconformity does not lead in a straight line to homosexual
development. There may be a connection between gender nonconformity at
an early stage of life and congenital influences. But the link between
congenital influences and homosexual development is at least one step
further removed. Different family, peer, and societal influences, along
with incremental choices and responses to life’s unique experiences,
best explain why early gender nonconformity leads to homosexual
development for many but not for all. See my book, 408-12.
-
The two best
identical twin studies to date suggest at most only a secondary
correlation between genes and homosexuality. Peterson and Hedlund show
awareness only of identical twin research that shows a 50% concordance
rate in identical twins when at least one twin self-identifies as
non-homosexual. This is just one more piece of evidence that Peterson
and Hedlund don’t have a good grasp of the research. The studies
producing a 50% concordance were riddled with sample bias, as even the
author of a couple of them later admitted: J. Michael Bailey. In those
studies participants were found by advertising in gay publications;
these participants self-selected to achieve a desired result for the
study. In The Bible and Homosexual Practice, which Peterson and
Hedlund should have read, I cite Bailey’s most recent identical twin
study, one that made use of the Australian Twin Register (p. 404; Bailey
et al., “Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and
its correlates in an Australian twin sample,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 78 [2000]: 524-36). This study found that
nearly nine out of ten times when an identical twin self-identified as
non-heterosexual the co-twin self-identified as heterosexual. Bailey
noted that this study “did not provide statistically significant support
for the importance of genetic factors for that trait” and that
“concordances from prior studies were inflated due to concordance
dependent ascertainment bias.” Strange that Peterson and Hedlund don’t
mention it. Then, too, Peterson and Hedlund seem to be unaware of the
twin study by P. A. Bearman of Columbia University and H. Brückner of
Yale University (“Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex
Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology 107 [2002]:
1179-1205). The study found no significant difference in concordance
rates for non-heterosexuality among identical twin pairs (6.7%) and
fraternal twin pairs (7.2%), even though the latter are no more
genetically ‘identical’ than non-twin siblings. Moreover, they found
that opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex
attraction as same-sex twins; and that males without older brothers
among opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex
attraction (18.7%) than their male counterparts with older brothers
(8.8%). Bearman and Brückner concluded that “less gendered socialization
in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex
romantic preferences.” Temperamental traits that are only indirectly
related to homosexuality interact with environmental factors and
incremental choices to raise or lower risk for homosexual development.
There is no congenital determinism.
A standard textbook on psychiatry makes
the following observation (cited in my book on p. 402): “Genetic factors
play some role in the production of homosexual behavior, but . . .
sexual behavior is molded by many influences, including ‘acquired tastes’
(or learning) closely related to the culture in which the individual
develops. . . . It is possible . . . to picture a future in which
homosexual behavior will be so much in the cultural experience of every
individual that the genetic contribution will become undetectable” (Paul
R. McHugh and Phillip R. Slavney, The Perspectives of Psychiatry
[2d ed.; Johns Hopkins, 1998], 184-85; both authors are professors at the
John Hopkins University School of Medicine). The convergence of multiple
pieces of evidence puts the lie to Peterson and Hedlund’s rigid
essentialist assumption that no amount of cultural incentives and no
amount of individual experimentation that goes along with such incentives
could ever affect the incidence of homosexuality in the population.
What the above suggests is that
providing the kind of cultural incentives for homosexual practice that
Peterson and Hedlund want to implement will probably increase not only the
incidence of homosexual identification and behavior in the population but
homosexuality itself. And with such an increase will come an increase in
the negative side-effects typically associated with homosexual practice
for health and relational problems. Now why would we want to encourage
that?
VII. On
Peterson and Hedlund’s Misrepresentation of the Scientific Data and My Use
of It
I offer here a shorter presentation of
what will be thoroughly documented in Part 2 of my essay.
A. Homosexuality and
psychopathology. Contrary to what Peterson and Hedlund charge, I
do not claim that the authors of the studies that I cite in on pp. 476-78
concluded that mental health problems were inherent in a homosexual
orientation. I do not believe that myself. Apart from sadomasochism, there
are no sexual attractions that always produce measurable harm to all
participants in all circumstances. I was correct in asserting, again
contrary to Peterson and Hedlund, that the researchers for one of the
studies and J. Michael Bailey who commented on both studies did not think
that the link to psychopathology could be dropped solely, and perhaps even
primarily, on the doorstep of societal homophobia. Nor did I cite only one
theory of possible causes, as they allege. What I do show from these and a
newer Dutch study is that the disproportionately high incidence of mental
health problems experienced by homosexual persons do not appear to lessen
significantly even as toleration and acceptance of homosexual practice
grows. That certainly suggests that something related to homosexuality
itself, not just societal opposition to it, contributes significantly to
mental health problems. If this is true, then Peterson and Hedlund’s
proposal that societal acceptance and promotion of committed homosexual
unions will essentially do away with the comparatively high incidences of
depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse is an instance of
wishful thinking.
B. The dearth of lifelong,
monogamous homosexual relationships. Peterson and Hedlund make an
extraordinarily unsuccessful attempt to dismiss the studies that I cite to
indicate the significantly higher numbers of sex partners that male
homosexuals have, on average, during the course of their life. I show why
the attempt is unsuccessful, looking briefly at each study. I further show
that those studies that also deal with lesbian relationships consistently
demonstrate significantly fewer partners for female homosexuals. This
suggests that male homosexual promiscuity cannot be primarily attributable
to societal “heterosexism” or “homophobia.” I also show how even many
researchers supportive of homosexual practice acknowledge sexual
stimulation patterns as a key male-female difference; moreover, that
Peterson and Hedlund completely ignore arguments for this in my book. I
also demonstrate that many respectable male homosexual activists have long
been making the point that the heterosexual principle of monogamy is too
stifling. I explain how a monogamy principle is logically threatened by a
refusal to predicate the ‘twoness’ of sexual unions on the ‘twoness’ or
binary character of sexual differentiation. I also discuss special
problems faced by lesbian relationships that do not hit male homosexual
relationships quite so hard, problems that are more likely to be due to
the absence of the balancing effect offered by a male partner than to
common societal “homophobia.”
C. The problem of pedophilia.
While I note here that I do not regard pedophilia as the most important
problem in endorsing homosexual practice, nor believe that most homosexual
persons engage in it or approve of it, I do show how cultural endorsement
of homosexual practice weakens the cultural barrier against
adult-adolescent and even adult-prepubescent sex. I first establish that a
significant body of literature coming from homosexual and bisexual
activists entertains the morality or at least permissibility of
adult-child sexual contact. I then show that Peterson and Hedlund’s rigid
distinction between pedophilia as an inherent “pathological mental
disorder” and homosexuality as a non-pathological condition is not
justified by the research that we currently have, as a number of
researchers supportive of the normalization of homosexual practice now
acknowledge. Neither pedophilia nor homosexuality causes intrinsic
measurable harm but both are associated with increased risk of such harm.
Arguments once used to justify removal of homosexuality from the
Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders are now being reused by
reputable researchers in reputable scientific journals to advocate a
similar reconsideration of pedophilia as a mental illness. I also show how
the attempt by Peterson and Hedlund and others to make an absolute
distinction between “homosexuals” and “homosexual pedophiles” is not
warranted by research to date. While there are differences between the two
that help to explain why most homosexual persons are not homosexual
pedophiles, there are also significant continuities between the two that
help to explain why the proportion of persons with a homosexual
development who become pedophiles is far higher than the proportion
of persons with a heterosexual development who become pedophiles. In this
connection Peterson and Hedlund seem a bit confused about the difference
between “total numbers” and matters of proportionality. I show why the
Jenny et al. study that they implicitly allude to is no evidence to the
contrary. I also explain why my statement that sexual abuse is likely to
be at least a causative factor in some homosexual
development is, contrary to Peterson and Hedlund, justified by scientific
research. Finally, I demonstrate why Peterson and Hedlund’s
counterargument regarding the near universal heterosexual behavior of men
of the Etoro tribe (who as children engage in transgenerational
homosexuality) does not establish the point the Peterson and Hedlund want
to make.
D. The problem of sexually
transmitted disease. Contrary to what Peterson and Hedlund falsely
claim, I do not say that disproportionately high numbers of sex partners
(particularly on the part of male homosexuals) and the disproportionately
high frequency of relationship breakups (especially among female
homosexuals) have nothing to do with the transmission of sexually
transmitted disease. Rather, I connect the two. The point that Peterson
and Hedlund miss (aside from the anal intercourse issue, below), even
though I enunciate it quite clearly on multiple occasions in my book, is
that these disproportionately high rates of partners and short-term sexual
relationships are themselves due to the inherent added difficulties of
pairing two people of the same sex. For various biological reasons men
simply find monogamous behavior to be more difficult than do women on
average. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be monogamous. It is just more
difficult. When you put two men together in a sexual union it doubles the
difficulty. Thus a male homosexual union is not generally a recipe for
lifelong monogamy. I also show how Peterson and Hedlund’s attempt to
discount receptive anal intercourse by male homosexuals as a significant
factor in developing rectal cancer is a misreading of scientific studies
on the matter. Women have a higher needs index in terms of what they
expect to get out of a relationship to meet basic yearnings for personal
esteem. Put two women together in a sexual union and the strain on the
relationship increases markedly, which in turn leads to more relational
breakups and more mental health issues.