[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
I. Call it the Genetic Fallacy
You’ve heard this argument before: Homosexuals are not made, they are born. It is not a matter of decision to be gay, it is a matter of nature; of genetic compulsion. Since God created all people, God created gay people. And if He created them gay, He must be OK with homosexuality. Moreover, since homosexuality is rooted in nature and the creative fiat of God, it is both laughable and deplorable that peoples throughout the ages have either stigmatized gays as aberrant, second-class citizens or have attempted to offer remedies to change the essential nature of individual homosexuals.
Of course, a child can see through this argument, especially if that child were born blind, or with spina bifida, Down’s syndrome, hemophilia, or countless other maladies which afflict people at birth. There are telethons devoted to raising money to defeat congenital diseases; there are countless foundations seeking to receive grants or give grants to help eradicate all sorts of birth defects. Why change these things if they are natural? Why heal people born with such things if God made them that way? There really is NO counter to this if one argues that "God creates everyone as they are".
But homosexuality proponents don’t mean that God created everybody to be a certain way. They mean something else. I’ll get to that in a moment. But before I do, I want to show the speciousness of the genetic argument.
Anyone reading nearly any popular news periodical over the last fifteen years would undoubtedly have read about scientific inquiries into genetics. There have been articles exploring cancer genes, or genes controlling obesity, alcoholism, depression, heart disease and mania. There have been studies exploring the happy gene, and even the love gene. What, pray tell, will come if one discovers that hate has a gene? What if, in next week’s Time magazine, a study is put forward showing that homophobia is genetic? Are we expected to believe that the pro-gay camp is going to honor homophobia on the grounds that God has created even homophobes, and that out-spoken homophobes are being true to their God-created natures?
No, we do not expect such support, but we should. For that is how the pro-gay camp in the Church has argued. Moreover, they have further argued that the Church should not only not tolerate those afflicted with homophobia, the Church should expect them to change, irrespective of whether homophobes are made or born! Amazingly, pro-gay advocates expect homophobes to change, but ridicule any suggestion that gays and lesbians can find remedial help in therapy, spirituality, and the Christian disciplines.
What can be rather easily posited is that it seems intuitively obvious that nature, through evolution, would indeed endow people with an aversion to something quite unnatural. That there is ample justification for this intuition is clear: there are no compelling examples of homosexuality any where in nature other than in humans. Sociobiologists have further argued that each person’s genes are absolutely dogged in trying to reproduce. Evolution has undoubtedly endowed some (many?) humans with an aversion to homosexuality the same way it has endowed humans with an aversion to the smell of decaying flesh, the heat of fire, and the vertigo of dangerous heights: these things are threats to the human species. So, too, is homosexuality, speaking strictly on evolutionary grounds. For heterosexuality perpetuates the species, including the homosexual impulse in that species (if genetic), whereas homosexuality does not. On a theoretical level, if all people behaved homosexually, there would be no people. But if all people behaved heterosexually, the joys of sexuality, including the alleged joys of homosexuality, would be shared throughout the ages. Sadly, and rather counter to evolution, the gay-marriage advocates may in fact be unwittingly culling from the gene pool homosexuality in total. For if homosexuality is genetic, then it can only be passed on through procreation. If most homosexuals "marry" other homosexuals, without first trying heterosexual activity, it seems that the number of reproducing homosexuals will eventually diminish to such a degree that homosexuality will be obliterated. And in a bitter irony, if homosexuality is an inherited gene, then someone, somewhere, who was apparently gay, or lesbian, chose to be involved in a heterosexual relationship, for the "gene" (or trait) could not be passed on otherwise. Was this sacrifice an act of love, a gift to the future? It seems it must have been. But does homosexual marriage limit the potential for more of that alleged blessedness? It seems it must.
See how far afield such fallacies take us?
Let us return to what homosexuality proponents really mean about genetics, or even the nature/nurture debate. What they mean is that some behaviors -- like homophobia -- are undesirable merely because they hurt others; and that the person with a particular trait or quality -- like Down's syndrome -- cannot live a full life unless freed of societal fears and restrictions of -- and biases against -- that apparent defect. That is why people try to heal birth defects, or limit the rights of those who behave in harmful ways. In the case at hand, opponents to homosexuality who may be homophobes (born or made is irrelevant), encroach upon the pursuit of happiness of others. No doubt this seems reasonable. But this is a very different argument than the one suggesting that God has made people certain ways. Clearly, this apparently reasonable position means to be a more mature expression of that argument attributing every creation to God. It is curious, however, that we are now really nowhere. Why? Because this new argument is nothing other than the very argument those opposed to homosexuality use to censure homosexuality! Alas, the pro-homosexual camp agrees that there are indeed some things that should and can be healed; and that there are some behaviors that should be limited or even condemned!
Ultimately the scientific realities about the genesis of homosexuality are really rather irrelevant. For we know the scientific realities about all sorts of maladies, and yet we cannot determine merely by science what maladies are [socially and morally] acceptable, and which ones are not. The American psychiatry and psychological professional communities determined over 30 years ago that homosexuality was not a mental illness or disturbance, yes. But this decision was not based on anything scientific. Just as there have been no decisive scientific studies proving homosexuality is genetic, there have been no studies showing that homosexuality is psychologically normal. Why? For no other reason than that the psychological communities admit that there is no way to determine a baseline “normal” psychological profile. Hence, the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychoses was based entirely on whether a person’s homosexuality was a problem for that person; and on whether any homosexual as homosexual was able to lead a meaningful, balanced life in society.
Curiously, this non-scientific decision is considerably flimsy. Any psychotic may claim that his life is just OK with him, despite evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is undue self-confidence in one’s own psychological health which usually indicates the presence of psychoses. Denial is the better part of valor to the psychotic. Plus, it leads to the rather dubious post-modern habit of complete self-determination. Besides, this whole argument leads to what can only be described as the great hypocrisy of the pro-gay movement. What is that hypocrisy? It is that homophobes are now considered psychologically unfit, and are now considered to be egregious sinners for non-conformity. Once, homosexuality was on the list of sins. Now, homophobia is a psychological aberration (with no evidence that it is), and as such, it is deemed worthy of the list of sins. That is why opponents to homosexuality are stigmatized, mocked, derided, and ostracized. That is why they are often hated by those claiming to know true love and tolerance. Even in a nearby church, which banned the use of its facilities by “homophobic Boy Scouts”, the pastor stated that any one holding intolerant views was not welcome in that church. How sad! Homosexuals, who were once apparently banned from churches, have succeeded only in changing the object of oppression. The same activists who wanted liberty have modeled “true love” and “acceptance” by stigmatizing and banning alleged homophobes. How circular must an argument be before we declare it fallacious?
Surely there are plenty of homophobes whose homophobia is not a problem for them; who live meaningful, fulfilling lives. Why then is their worldview untenable? Simple. Their worldview is untenable solely because they do not conform. This whole issue has nothing to do with truth, or science, or justice. It has to do with power, with who has the most political strength, will, and financial leverage. It is about shouting, shouting louder than the opposition. But even shouting is nothing but a fallacy: It is the fallacy ad baculum, arguing by force, and not by intellectual strength. Those flinging around the "homophobia" label are quick to point out that whereas homosexuality does not impede any one’s pursuit of happiness, homophobia does try to impede. Really? How about my pursuit of happiness, as a heterosexual, to worship God in a Church not given to compromising on moral issues for fallacious reasons? How is my view of God, the world and worship not impeded by those who want to reconstruct God, the world and worship into things conforming to a “post-modern” image?
Trust me. There is a broad and vocal movement committed to eradicating the Church of those who believe certain moral truths are static. That movement is the liberalizing, pro-gay movement, and it has everything to do with impeding other people. If this were not the case, there would never have been the crass interruption and insolent desecration of the Mass in New York’s St. Patrick's Cathedral -- a Roman Catholic Church -- by members of Act-Up in 1989. [That highwater mark (at the time), in which even the Holy Host was desecrated, remains a legendary moment in gay activism. And it's a highwater mark that showed that such activism is about something other than love. But if that is not true, it surely is about impeding the freedom of others.]
[One closing note: it is interesting, in a confusing sort of way, that gays and lesbians have aligned their socio-political activities with trans-gendered folks, those folks who feel the need for sex changes. For if God creates and He makes no mistakes, then it is clear that He indeed has made mistakes, i.e., those people who demand medical treatments for their sexual birth disorders. Trans-gendered folks are by definition defective and "changed"; they are malleable and reeducable. How this alliance was forged between LGBT activists is beyond me.]
(Tomorrow: The fallacy of hermeneutical arrogance)
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Part IV of the series begins here.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop, Act-Up
No comments:
Post a Comment