Christian Reasons to Support Gay Rights

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:23 pm

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

Today, we see polls like this one that indicate many young people leaving the church or the faith because of the negative attitude displayed by many religious people towards gays and lesbians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... ign=buffer

1) Would it not make sense for Christians to lay aside anti-gay rhetoric, including quoting of Biblical verses that are claimed to condemn homosexuality, if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to evangelism?

2) Does not Jesus' own ministry, and the actions of the Apostles as described in Acts 15 give ample precedent for laying aside Biblical verses that seem to allude to homosexuality?

I will note that Christianity has by and large already set aside many precepts now seen to be archaic, including the idea that women should never speak in church, and that we should simply accept any and all governments as instituted by God and worthy of our obedience. The Declaration of Independence, in particular, repudiates this notion, outlined by Paul in his letters.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law, and that he was criticized by many of his fellow believers, especially those who were arguably most religious, for doing so.

I will point out that the faith of those conservative believers rather quickly became a small minority as compared to Christianity.

It really comes down to this:

3) Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality, or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

Wissing · Post by **Wissing** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:35 pm

[Replying to Haven]

First, I apologize for using the term "homosexual", as I did not realize it was offensive.

Again, let me clarify a stance I thought I already made clear. To me, the issue is apolitical. I do not believe that political change really resolves anything. For every solution, more problems arise. I do not support or oppose gay rights from a secular legal standpoint. I absolutely support the dignity of people like yourself, and I think I've made that clear to you as well. That you think individual dignity and civic neutrality are incompatible is unfortunate. I disagree. That's the very core of the issue. I do respect you. I have put time and energy into dialogue with you. I'm doing my best to present evidence and read yours (for instance, you provided the link to the journal I quoted before, and I did a search for " causes", and the one I cited is literally the only thing I found. Then when I saw the APA statement that there's no consensus, I decided that it would be unreasonable for me, a lay person, to decide for myself). I'm not one for overturning an age-old precedent with only inconclusive evidence. But if you insist, what action could I possibly take to support your rights genuinely? I am not a lawmaker. Is there a certain politician you would have me vote for? Is there a parade you'd have me march in? Is that genuine support? Does that make things better? What can I do to appease your demand for political rights, if only to gain the privilege of discussing the heavier matters?

I also didn't say being gay is a choice. I said it's not well understood. I am willing to operate under the assumption that it's not a choice. But I know for a fact that sex is a choice, which is why I brought up abstinence. This, according to my belief system and my personal experience, is a viable and even preferrable option.

I also apologize that I did not have time to review your sources yet, Haven - I will try to do that and present a more informed reply next week. In the mean time, I would find it helpful for you to present those other sources you mentioned to corroborate Kinsey's theory. I would trust your expertise more than a Google search. Please help me to better understand. Also, it would help if you elaborate on the idea that gays are more subject to poverty. The article you provided is not strong evidence. One very recent, very speculative study, with too many maybe's and too small a sample size, is not enough. The quote below is an example. It's evidence, but it's just not conclusive.

"While the full impact of homophobia on a countryâ€™s economy is not easily modeled and current analyses are incomplete due to lack of research, attempts to close the data gap with studies like Badgettâ€™s must be undertaken to uncover the complete economic costs of homophobia."

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:04 pm

Wissing wrote: First, I apologize for using the term "homosexual", as I did not realize it was offensive.
.... To me, the issue is apolitical. I do not believe that political change really resolves anything. For every solution, more problems arise. I do not support or oppose gay rights from a secular legal standpoint. I absolutely support the dignity of people like yourself, and I think I've made that clear to you as well. That you think individual dignity and civic neutrality are incompatible is unfortunate. I disagree. That's the very core of the issue. I do respect you. I have put time and energy into dialogue with you. I'm doing my best to present evidence and read yours (for instance, you provided the link to the journal I quoted before, and I did a search for " causes", and the one I cited is literally the only thing I found. Then when I saw the APA statement that there's no consensus, I decided that it would be unreasonable for me, a lay person, to decide for myself).
....

1st, tho' I agree one should be sensitive to Haven's preference for avoiding the word 'homosexual' I'm not aware of a proper neutral substitute.

I disagree that the 'issue' is apolitical. Everything anyone cares about in sufficient numbers can be political. I also believe individual dignity and civic neutrality are not necessarily incompatible. If one has no opinion on an issue, I don't see why he can't maintain his dignity, tho' silence in the face of injustice may be a sign of cowardice.

That there is no overall consensus about "causation" is not an endorsement of simply making up convenient causation that may fit better with one's ideology.
In addition to the powerful evidence that there is a genetic basis for gender attraction, tho' the exact mechanism is as yet unknown, for me there is powerful anecdotal information I cannot ignore.

I have read too many personal accounts and had too many private conversations with people who struggled against their nature regarding their attraction to the same gender to ever be able to accept that they made a free choice to make life more difficult for themselves by opting to be in the minority.
Fortunately we see this painful process less than we used to in some areas, because the hostility has lessened and the acceptance has grown. I feel it is my duty to actively be part of that more generous community.

I did not come by these views naturally. As a child raised in the 50's and 60's in an evangelical Christian home and community,* I came by my former anti gay prejudices as easily as I learned to speak English.
Tho' in high school when I heard bullies and lunkheads pontificating about how to deal with "queers" ['Just hit 'em in the mouth; they'll run every time.'] I cringed and knew there was something wrong with such an attitude, I still thought there was something wrong with "queers" and anyone who didn't fit the "proper" ideal.

All the same, by the time I was in my 30's I realized I was more than annoyed by all of this "gay rights" militant activism. When I examined my own feelings of hostility, I made a conscious effort, almost a prayer, to be delivered from those feelings.
Like magic, like an answer to prayer, I was almost instantly relieved of such nonsense. All it took was the wanting to.

_________________________
*I do not want, by any means, to suggest these prejudices were any stronger in the Christian community. That may be true today, but in the 50's and early 60's this prejudice was almost universal. Today I consider it little different than racial prejudice. Both are based on willful ignorance.

Wissing · Post by **Wissing** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:11 pm

[Replying to Haven]

A response to Burri, et. al. from your post[1]:

While there may be, on paper, a genetic link between sexuality and number of partners for homosexual women, realistically it is not possible to control for the huge impact environmental effects will play.

A response to Rice, et. al. from your post[2]:

The authors make a good case that epigenetics should be included in the mix of factors contributing to homosexuality. I agree, but believe it will prove to be a minor contributor only, along with many other minor contributors....

The paper really discusses sexually dimorphic genitalia, not homosexuality...
...it predominantly discusses what [the authors] believe to be a strong epigenetic influence on sexual differentiation in the genitalia of the two sexes. From this basis they theorise epigenetics must also have a predominant role in homosexuality....

In my view this paper risks joining the many other efforts to show a powerful biological causality in homosexuality, all of which have failed.

For his credibility, note that Whitehead also wrote something with a title suggesting societal factors contribute heavily [3], meaning he's probably not just a bigot.

Here's another one of your references (I found a link)[4]. Answering questionnaires is tricky. The questions are often so ambiguous, it's hard to tell if my the responses are free of misinterpretation or mistake - how on earth can the researchers glean reliable data that way?

To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes.

The results of these studies are never really... conclusive. They always end the same way. "Gaps in our understanding" is absolutely right.

There remain considerable gaps in our understanding that should provide avenues for future research, but the results of the present study contribute to dialogue on a prevailing conundrum â€” the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the human population.

Look, I understand wanting to improve the world around you. I understand wanting to be genuine, and not be "willfully ignorant". It's the reason I keep up the dialogue like this. It's the reason why I check your sources. But the evidence is just not conclusive. It just complicates things to throw more inconclusive evidence into the mix.

Did you read all my sources in the discussions we've had? The posts from Vekhi and other Russian literature, pointing to the well-evidenced pitfalls of political activism, and demonstrating how the spirit of the individual can be compromised by the movement? And yes, gay rights is definitely a movement[5].

The personal growth of individuals is the solution. I don't just mean gays, I mean all of us. The bullies. The band-wagoners. The ignorant. The overly-skeptical. A change in each individual human heart. This is very relevant to this topic, and it's not just "preaching" - it's an alternate solution to the problem of oppression against gays - one that might actually work.

[1] Dr Simon Underdown. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/exper ... n-females/
[2] N.E.Whitehead, Ph.D. (emphasis mine). December 2012.http://www.mygenes.co.nz/epigenetics.htm
[3] Whitehead, N. . (2011). Neither genes nor choice: Same-sex attraction is mostly a unique reaction to environmental factors. Journal of Human Sexuality, 3, 81â€“114.
[4] Zietsch, et. al. 2008. (see above) http://www.readbag.com/genepi-qimr-au-c ... beh424-433
[5] http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gender ... vement.htm

Haven · Post by **Haven** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:52 am

[Replying to post 269 by Wissing]

Thanks for both your responses. I'll address your concerns briefly (again, I'm time limited) and provide the sources you requested supporting Kinsey (4, 5).

[1] All I'd ask of you (and any heterosexual skeptic of gay rights) is to not vote for anti-gay laws (such as the dreadful piece of legislation passed in Indiana) and to vote for pro-LGBT legislation when it's proposed. The LDS set a wonderful example for this with their "Utah Compromise." (1)

[2] Emotion-based accusations like "bigot" are kind of out of place in academia, but it's true that Neil E. Whitehead works with anti-gay religious fundamentalist organizations. His opinions on the causes of homosexuality are said to be "out in right field" by most sexualities researchers (including myself) and don't represent the majority opinion within sexualities studies.

Furthermore, the periodical the articles you cite comes from--The Journal of Human Sexuality--is run by the anti-gay reparative therapy i. (also known as "conversion therapy") (6) outlet National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and is universally considered pseudo-scientific and pseudo-academic by scholars and researchers within the field of sexualities studies (2). It exists to promote a homophobic and misogynistic brand of religious extremism, not to disseminate good scientific research on sexualities. It's on par with Journal of Creation Research and other evangelical fundamentalist pseudo-scientific "journals." The Journal of Homosexuality is the most respected academic journal in the sexualities studies field.

These things alone obviously don't invalidate Whitehead's opinions (to suggest they do would be to commit the twin fallacies of appeal to popularity and argumentum ad hominem). Still, Whitehead seems to not fully consider recent research from epigenetics and endocrinology; his research seems a decade or more behind the curve. His frequent citations of studies from decades ago and misinterpretation of biological studies (that is, he fails to fully appreciate that biological findings are, by their very nature, caused by any number of factors and not present in all cases [finger length, etc.]; yet they are present in disproportionate numbers of sexual minorities) demonstrate these problems. Furthermore, he cites twin studies (again, from decades ago) but fails to appreciate their significance in determining the genetic contributions to homosexuality. They demonstrate a genetic link, almost certainly mediated through hormonal exposure and epigenetics, not a singular causation in all cases.

Again, Whitehead seems to think that genetic causation is an either-or thing, either something is genetic or it's not. This is a gross misinterpretation of the current science on genetics and epigenetics (7).

It seems (in my own personal opinion) that he kind of gravitates to the "choice" side of the argument for what I can only assume to be personal and religious reasons. It should go without saying that this isn't the mark of good scholarship.

Finally, even if it were conclusively demonstrated that homosexuality was a choice, why would that make any difference for lesbian/gay rights? Religious belief and practice is, after all, clearly a choice (influenced by societal factors), yet it's still a protected identity in society (and rightfully so). Why should chosen homosexuality (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it exists) be different?

[3] I don't really want to get into the religious debate over abstinence and same-sex sexual activity. Because I'm not Christian, religious, or theistic in any way, strictly religious morÃ©s and taboos over sexuality are of no relevance to me whatsoever. What's more, because we live in a secular nation, strictly religious sexual limitations should have no standing under the law.

Personally, I don't really care what your church (or any church) teaches about the morality of sex (as long as it doesn't promote rape/pedophilia/other non-consensual acts), as long as it recognizes its views have no impact on non-believers. That's all I (and pretty much any LGBT advocate you'd talk to) want.

[4] It seems like you're proposing a "choice-of-the-gaps" argument: you're saying that because we don't completely understand the cause of gender attraction, it must be due to choice. This is fallacious for the same reason as the better-known "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy (3).

[5] Twentieth-century Russian anticommunists were (understandably!) quite leery of revolutionary political action, so it's no surprise that they spoke out against political change. Still, I find this position extreme, and ultimately just as harmful as the communism against which it reacted. Instead, a balanced perspective is needed: while "grand theories" of political change usually end in disaster, absolute political stasis can be just as necessary. Keep in mind that if there were no political change, women, people of color, and non-property owners would still be unable to vote, blacks would still be slaves, and Americans would still be paying taxes to the United Kingdom.

Sometimes political change is the most ethical course of action; reason and kindness should be the guides as to when this is the case.

Again, thanks for your respectful tone; I really appreciate it

.

___________________
References:
(1) Jonathan Rauch, March 17, 2015: "The Landmark LGBT-Mormon (sic) Compromise in Utah."

(2) Jim Burroway, July 6th, 2009: "NARTH Publishes Fake 'Study' in a Fake 'Journal.'"

(3) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 15, 2015: "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence."

(4) Galupo, M. Paz, Renae C. Mitchell, Ashley L. Grynkiewicz, and Kyle S. Davis. 2014. "Sexual Minority Reflections on the Kinsey Scale and the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid: Conceptualization and Measurement." Journal of Bisexuality 14, no. 3-4: 404-432.

(5) Lovelock, James M. 2014. "Using the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid in Sociological Studies." Journal of Bisexuality.

(6) Southern Poverty Law Center: "Conversion Therapy."

(7) Sargent, M. 2012. "Epigenetics: Differences Under the Skin."

__________________
Footnotes

i. Reparative therapy is considered abusive by the American Psychological Association and is illegal in California and Washington D.C.

Haven · Post by **Haven** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:19 am

Hopefully I'll have time to post an in-depth rebuttal to Whitehead some time this week. His misunderstandings of epigenetics, sexualities research, statistical significance, and even the basic scientific process are so flagrant that they demand some kind of rational response.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:43 am

[Replying to post 271 by Wissing]

Whitehead's work is suspect, to say the least.
"A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay brothers, including sets of twins, has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8 â€¦

â€˜It erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice,â€™ says study leader Alan Sanders of the NorthShore Research Institute in Evanston, Illinois."
~ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/spectator- ... t-genetic/

"Alarm bells started going off by the end of the second paragraph. Dr Whitehead isnâ€™t at the cutting edge of genetic research. I looked him up and it turns out heâ€™s a â€˜Christian writerâ€™ who has been accused by his critics of producing â€˜junk scienceâ€™. Iâ€™m not qualified to judge, but this report by New Scientist rubbishes his argument"
ibid

I have my own evidence. Among the many cousins, nieces, and nephews on my father's side, only one is homosexual.
On my mother's side, there are a dozen.
Both my mother's side and my father's were/are evangelical Christians.
All of my siblings and I are heterosexual.
Whitehead is full of . . . rubbish.

Haven · Post by **Haven** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:47 am

[Replying to post 269 by Wissing]

I forgot: a source backing up the claim that gays are more subject to poverty. Here you go:

[1] Gates, Gary J., and Frank Newport. 2012. "Special report: 3.4% of US adults identify as LGBT." Washington, DC: Gallup.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:51 pm

Wissing wrote: [Replying to Haven]

First, I apologize for using the term "homosexual", as I did not realize it was offensive.

Again, let me clarify a stance I thought I already made clear. To me, the issue is apolitical. I do not believe that political change really resolves anything. For every solution, more problems arise. I do not support or oppose gay rights from a secular legal standpoint. I absolutely support the dignity of people like yourself, and I think I've made that clear to you as well. That you think individual dignity and civic neutrality are incompatible is unfortunate. I disagree. That's the very core of the issue. I do respect you. I have put time and energy into dialogue with you. I'm doing my best to present evidence and read yours (for instance, you provided the link to the journal I quoted before, and I did a search for " causes", and the one I cited is literally the only thing I found. Then when I saw the APA statement that there's no consensus, I decided that it would be unreasonable for me, a lay person, to decide for myself). I'm not one for overturning an age-old precedent with only inconclusive evidence. But if you insist, what action could I possibly take to support your rights genuinely? I am not a lawmaker. Is there a certain politician you would have me vote for? Is there a parade you'd have me march in? Is that genuine support? Does that make things better? What can I do to appease your demand for political rights, if only to gain the privilege of discussing the heavier matters?

I'm not gay and don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a suggestion:
Don't restrict to others, things that you hold dear for yourself. For example, your right to vote, or being with the person you love.

I also didn't say being gay is a choice. I said it's not well understood. I am willing to operate under the assumption that it's not a choice. But I know for a fact that sex is a choice, which is why I brought up abstinence. This, according to my belief system and my personal experience, is a viable and even preferrable option.

See the bold. Here you suggest that gays abstain from having sex? Something I assume you hold dear for yourself, yet would restrict for some of your fellow human beings.
Something, to which IMO deserves a "shame on you". Your mileage may vary.

Wissing · Post by **Wissing** » Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:20 am

[Replying to post 276 by Clownboat]

You assume that I hold sex dear to me? Then you shame me?

Please read back a few posts.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:44 am

Wissing wrote: [Replying to post 276 by Clownboat]

You assume that I hold sex dear to me? Then you shame me?

Please read back a few posts.

This ambiguous reference to some prior post is irrelevant. Whether or not sex is important to you has no weight in the argument. Sex is important to most healthy people and is a basic and powerful drive that both Christians and others view as one that is best satisfied with a loving, long term partner in a stable, faithful relationship.