Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in
the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book
Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
gagnon@pts.edu
September
2003
Updated
10/2/03
The following notes correspond to the
note numbers in my essay, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Key Issues,”
in Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views
(co-authored with Dan O. Via; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 41-92.
For full bibliographic entries to the abbreviations given below, see the
“Fuller Bibliography” on the "Material for 'Two Views'" web page.
1. I am
not asserting that the issue of homosexual practice is the most important
concern of the church in absolute terms—more important, for example, than
the issue of the sole lordship of Jesus Christ over our syncretistic
culture. Christology is obviously the heart and soul of Christian faith.
Yet attacks on Christ’s lordship are rarely frontal assaults. They more
commonly occur when positions that would have appalled Jesus and that
represent a radical departure from Scripture are foisted on the church.
The church’s historic stance on a prescriptive male-female paradigm for
sexual unions is the current foremost “endangered species” of the church.
As such, it demands special attention. Indeed, as noted in points 3 and 4
below, religious freedom itself is at stake. For a riveting and alarming
discussion of this, see the aptly subtitled book by Alan Sears and Craig
Osten: The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. No
Christian who has reservations about affirming homosexual behavior can
read this book and not recognize the extraordinary political dangers that
face the church and youth generally from pro-homosex legislation.
2. It is
true that the Western church continues to be beset by the problem of
materialism and indifference to the plight of the poor. However, I know of
no lobby in the church celebrating greed as a positive good or attempting
to overturn the dominant scriptural perspective on this issue.
3. For a
theocentric and christocentric preface to sexuality, see Gagnon 2001b, 1-3
(for an online pdf copy see
http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/NovDec01.PDF or
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/gagnon1.pdf). There I look at texts
from both Paul and John to show that arguments favoring homosexual
behavior overturn not only Scripture’s explicit teaching on this matter
but also other basic principles enshrined in Scripture. In insisting that
God and Christ could not possibly deny one whole form of consensual sexual
expression, pro-homosex arguments give only subordinate weight to (1) the
theocentric posture of Scripture, (2) the basic Christian paradigm of
grace amidst cruciformity, and (3) the image of Jesus as the sufficient
Answer to all life’s desires.
12.
Charles Cosgrove acknowledges the need to give “greater weight to
countercultural voices in scripture” but suggests that Paul has bowed to
the “dominant antipathy in his culture against homosexuality” in Rom
1:26-27, whereas in Gal 3:28 Paul “challenges dominant notions of sexual
identity” (Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002], 43). Cosgrove is wrong. The Greco-Roman culture had a
“dominant antipathy” to some forms of homoerotic practice but by no
means all (see Williams’ Roman Homosexuality). Even the occasional
Greek or Roman critic of homoerotic practice fell far short of the
intensity of opposition expressed in Judeo-Christian circles. Both Jews
and Christians recognized that their view of homosexual practice set them
apart from the culture at large. The Judeo-Christian view was not merely
“echoing the dominant culture” when it opposed all same-sex intercourse;
it was critiquing that culture. As noted in 2.d. (p. 46), nothing in Gal
3:28 challenges the root reason for Paul’s opposition to same-sex
intercourse.
13. On
the one hand the Old Testament allows divorce for men (Deut 24:1-4). On
the other hand, anti-divorce currents can be detected: the Old Testament
makes no provision for divorce initiated by wives, puts some restrictions
on a husband’s right to divorce his wife (Deut 22:19, 29; 24:1), at one
point declares “I (Yahweh) hate divorce” (Mal 2:16), and presents a vision
of marriage in Gen 1:27 and 2:24 that Jesus understood to be in tension
with the Mosaic allowance for divorce (Mark 10:9).
14.
Suffice it to say that Paul’s and Matthew’s slight modulation of
Jesus’ divorce ruling –if that is the right word—gives no grounds for a
complete overhaul of a core sex-proscription in Scripture such as
the one against same-sex intercourse. Paul and Matthew were not saying: we
should celebrate divorce and provide cultural incentives for perpetuating
a cycle of divorce and remarriage. Indeed, they undoubtedly saw their
qualifications as in line with Jesus’ own original intention.
15. Walter Wink has suggested that
Jesus was more staunchly opposed to divorce than to homoerotic
intercourse, if indeed Jesus was opposed to the latter at all (Wink 1999,
41). Yet shall we claim that Jesus had weaker convictions about bestiality
and incest on the grounds that he said not a word about these subjects? In
speaking against divorce and remarriage, Jesus was turning his attention
to a sexual issue that was a problem in his society; namely, the threat
posed by divorce to the indissolubility of the one valid form of sexual
union, the matrimony of one man and one woman. Obviously Jesus did not
regard the longevity of a given sexual union to be more important than the
intra-human, non-incestuous, and heterosexual prerequisites for entering
such a union. Illicit sexual unions deserve to be severed.
16.
Does it no longer trouble us that the church has become all too lax in its
willingness to permit divorce when Jesus Christ himself, the epitome of
God’s love, took a different approach? Essentially we have arrived at, and
even expanded upon, the Old Testament allowance for divorce that
precipitated Jesus’ criticism in the first place.
17.
Arguably, sex between a man and his mother would be a comparable offense,
slightly more or slightly less offensive depending on the author. Apart
from that one possible qualification, however, only bestiality was
considered a more severe “consensual” sexual offense than same-sex
intercourse. At least four points demonstrate this. (1) Both ancient
Israel and early Judaism exhibited extreme repugnance for same-sex
intercourse. Such repugnance, of course, is conveyed in the Levitical
proscriptions, which specifically tag man-male intercourse as a to’evah
(an abomination; something particularly abhorrent, detestable, loathsome,
repugnant, disgusting). Abhorrence for same-sex intercourse per se
also factors prominently in three important “kitchen sink stories” of
massive human depravity (Ham, Sodom, the Levite at Gibeah) and in the
references to the qedeshim (male cult prostitutes) in Deuteronomic
law and in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings; here too
labeled a to’evah). The fact that Ezekiel could describe it only by
metonymy in 16:50 and 18:12 (as to’evah) also points in this
direction, as does the absence of a specific recorded case of same-sex
intercourse in early Judaism (from the Second Temple period on) prior to
ca. A.D
300. Regarding the possibility of Jews engaging in this abhorrent
behavior, a text from the rabbinic Tosefta comments simply: “Israel is not
suspected” (Qiddushin 5:10). Jews in the Greco-Roman period
regarded man-male intercourse as the prime example, or at least one of the
top examples, of Gentile impiety (e.g., Sibylline Oracles 3;
Letter of Aristeas 152). In a lengthy description of sex laws, Philo
(ca. 10 B.C.-A.D.
45) characterizes male-male intercourse as a “much greater evil than that
which was mentioned [above],” referring minimally to sex with a menstruous
and barren women and possibly as well to the preceding discussion of
adultery and incest (Special Laws 3.7-42; though cf. 3.14: “What
form of unholiness could be more impious than [marrying one’s mother]?”).
Philo follows his discussion of male-male intercourse with one about
bestiality (3.43-50), introduced with the words alla gar
(literally, “but really, certainly”), whose sense may be correctly
captured in F. Colson’s translation for the Loeb Classical Library
edition: “Even worse than this,” that is, even worse than man-male
intercourse. When Josephus (ca.
A.D. 37-100) discusses marriage
laws, his very first point, before he even mentions incest and adultery,
is: “The Law recognizes only intercourse according to nature, that which
is with a woman. . . . That of males with males it abhors and, if anyone
attempts it, death is the penalty” (Against Apion 2.199-200). At
another place, though, he singles out sexual intercourse with one’s mother
as “the greatest evil” before citing (in no particular order of priority)
other forms of incest, sex with a menstruous woman, bestiality, and
male-male intercourse (Jewish Antiquities 3.274-75). (2) The
marriage text in Gen 2:24 marks as the one essential prerequisite of a
married union, beyond its intra-human character, that it involves a man
and a woman. Incest itself must be ruled out of bounds on the basis of
post-Fall developments. Same-sex intercourse is precluded already prior to
the Fall. (3) The Old Testament makes limited accommodations to monogamy
and longevity, and in the patriarchal period some relationships existed
that were subsequently banned by Levitical legislation as incestuous. Yet
the Old Testament makes no exceptions for same-sex intercourse. (4) In Rom
1:24-27 Paul highlights same-sex intercourse, along with idolatry, as a
prime example of egregious human suppression of the truth about God in
creation. This, plus the charged terms with which Paul describes same-sex
intercourse in 1:24-27, confirm that Paul’s views on same-sex intercourse
were as strong as those held by Jews generally of the period. That Paul
employs the discussion in 1:18-32 to ensnare the righteous Jew in 2:1-3:8
in no way detracts from Paul’s own vigorously negative assessment of
same-sex intercourse (Gagnon 2001a, 277-84).
18.
Scripture explicitly designates sex between sexual sames as “contrary to
nature.” In a derivative sense we might speak of the unnatural or bodily
incongruous character of incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. Leviticus
18:23 designates bestiality as a tevel, “an untoward mixture,
perversion.” The same term is applied in 20:12 to a father having sex with
his son’s wife. The term zimmah (“depravity, monstrosity”) is used
in 20:14 of a man who has sex with a woman and her daughter. Of course,
to’evah (“abomination, detestable act”) is specifically attached to
man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13; then, by extension, to all
sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 (so 18:24-30).
19. The
following comments on pedophilia by Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Sexual
Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins, provide an interesting parallel to
homosexual orientation: “The biggest misconception about pedophilia is
that someone chooses to have it. . . . It’s not anyone’s fault that they
have it, but it’s their responsibility to do something about it. . . .
Biological factors play into [the development of pedophilia]. . . . We’ve
learned that you can successfully treat people with pedophilia, but you
cannot cure them” (People Magazine, Apr. 15, 2002).
20.
Linda Mealey, Sex Differences (San Diego: Academic Press, 2000),
244.
21.
Jesus did speak against judging others (e.g., Matt 7:1-5 // Luke 6:37,
41-42). However, the context for such sayings, both literary and
historical, makes it obvious that Jesus was not advocating that his
followers cease making moral distinctions between good and bad behavior.
Indeed, one can hardly criticize another for the act of judging without
making such a distinction. The point of the anti-judgment sayings was to
warn people, particularly the Pharisees, against judgment that is overly
punctilious, hypocritical, and loveless. The very next saying after Matt
7:1-5 is about not giving what is holy to dogs or throwing pearls before
swine (7:6)—certainly not a non-judgmental statement.
22.
Gagnon, “A Rejoinder to Walter Wink’s Views,” 23-33 (http://robgagnon.net/articles/gagnon5.pdf).
23. When
Paul refers to the law as something abrogated he has in view the law of
Moses instituted on Mount Sinai as the ruling power over Israel and thus,
by extension, over all Adam’s descendants. In Paul’s understanding the
Mosaic law was defective in three key ways: (1) Since it was given to
Israel it served as a marker of Jewish identity and therefore as a
boundary that tended to keep Gentiles out; in short, it was ethnically
exclusive. (2) Even though there was a redemptive component to the law, it
did not have as its basis the definitive and climactic redemptive work of
God in Christ. Its stress was on human doing rather than divine doing and,
as such, it made possible boasting in one’s own self. (3) Most
importantly, it was helpless to empower obedience in the face of the
strong sinful impulse operating in Adamic flesh, but powerful to curse
those who violated its commands.
24.
Martin Luther says as much in his comments on Rom 6:14 (Lectures on
Romans, in Luther’s Works [vol. 25; Saint Louis: Concordia,
1972], 316-17): “Hence we must note that the apostle’s mode of speaking
appears unusual and strange to those who do not understand it because of
its great peculiarity. For those people understand the expression ‘to be
under the Law’ as being the same as having a law according to which one
must live. But the apostle understands the words ‘to be under the Law’ as
equivalent to not fulfilling the Law, as being guilty of disobeying the
Law, as being a debtor and a transgressor, in that the Law has the power
of accusing and damning a person and lording it over him, but it does not
have the power to enable him to satisfy the Law or overcome it. And thus
as long as the Law rules, sin also has dominion and holds man captive. . .
. Therefore he says in this passage that we can restrain the reign of sin
because ‘we are not under the Law but under grace’ (v. 14). All this means
‘that the body of sin might be destroyed’ (v. 6) and the righteousness
which has been begun may be brought to perfection.”
25.
Ibid., 321. John Calvin made a similar point when he commented on Rom 8:9:
“Those in whom the Spirit does not reign do not belong to Christ;
therefore those who serve the flesh are not Christians, for those who
separate Christ from His Spirit make Him like a dead image or a corpse. .
. . [F]ree remission of sins cannot be separated from the Spirit of
regeneration. This would be, as it were, to rend Christ asunder” (The
Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians
[trans. R. MacKenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961], 164).
26. The
trip to God’s kingdom is free, all expenses paid by Christ’s death, but
one still has to get on and stay on the airplane that God provides to get
us there (the Spirit). So long as one lives in the main as a fleshly
being, one remains very much on the runway.
27.
Faith in Christ for Paul meant an end to a life for self and a beginning
to life for Christ who gave himself for us. The one who lives in the main
for self does not have faith in Christ. Paul stresses in the theme
statement of his letter to the Romans that the Christian life is always
characterized by believing in the gospel about Christ, not just at the
moment of conversion. “God’s righteousness”—the rightness of God to save
through a law-free gospel about Christ, and/or the saving activity that
flows from and vindicates God’s rightness—“is being revealed from faith
to faith,” that is, by faith from beginning to end or from first to
last (Rom 1:17a). Paul’s main proof text was Hab 2:4: “The one who is
righteous from faith shall live” (Rom 1:17b; Gal 3:11). Faith is concrete.
The truth of the gospel daily challenges believers to believe that the
message of the gospel about Christ’s death and resurrection for them is
more real than anything that can be seen or touched. It calls on them to
believe that they can cease living for themselves and instead let Christ
live in them. And it urges them to acknowledge that God’s program for
their lives, namely to form Christ in them by any means necessary, is
better than any immediate self-gratification. Suppose a man wants to have
sex with a woman other than his wife. What does faith mean in this
context? Does it mean believing that Jesus died for him, knowing that he
is going to heaven, and then having sex with the woman? May it not be so.
Faith here means: Because I am so grateful for the salvation accomplished
through Christ and am convinced that what God has in store for me—forming
Christ in me, often through deprivation—is better than the gratification
of this sinful impulse, I will not yield to that impulse. In other words,
one cannot live primarily in conformity to the self-oriented impulse
operating in human flesh and then claim to be living out of the conviction
of being justified by faith. To be sure, even when one obeys, it is God
who effects “both the willing and the working for his good pleasure” (Phil
2:13). Yet it is precisely because “God is the one who is at work in you”
that one is to “work at your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil
2:12). One must comply with God’s doing. To do otherwise is to substitute
one’s own willing and doing for God’s, living out of one’s flesh rather
than the Spirit. The outcome is death rather than life.
28.
“Law” (nomos) here and in Rom 7:23 and 7:25b has a metaphorical
sense. The law of God from Moses is good (7:12, 16) but, unfortunately, it
is external and weak. The “law of the mind” that recognizes the goodness
of the commands of the Mosaic law is, fortunately, internal but,
unfortunately, still weak. There is “another law,” another regulating
power, at work in human flesh, the “law of sin (and death), i.e., the
sinful impulse. Unfortunately, it is not only internal but also strong,
time and again taking prisoner the mind’s desire to do what the Mosaic law
commands. A new internal “law” or regulating power that is stronger than
the sinful impulse needs to be introduced. That new law is none other than
the Spirit of Christ, made available to all who believe and enabling
believers to do the essential will of God enshrined in the Mosaic
law—without, however, reinstituting the jurisdictional authority of the
Mosaic law (8:1-17). With most Pauline scholars, I take Romans 7:7-25
(minus the anticipatory cry of deliverance in 7:25a) to be a description
of the life of the unbeliever, one who does not have the Spirit and so
remains under the regime of Adamic flesh and its Spirit-less
jurisdictional authority, the Mosaic law. The prefacing texts, 7:5-6,
decisively favor this interpretation. Romans 7:5 (“when we were in
the flesh the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our
members, so as to bear fruit for death”) is a perfect summary of the
experience elaborated in 7:7-25. Romans 7:6 (“but now we were
discharged from the law, having died to that by which we were being held
down, so that we might serve in newness of Spirit, and not oldness of
letter”) is likewise the perfect rubric for 8:1-17, which also begins with
a “now” denoting the new circumstances of the believer in Christ. In
short, the difference between “the law of the Spirit” and the law of Moses
is threefold, answering to the threefold defect in the Mosaic law cited in
n. 23 above: (1) The law of the Spirit does not set up barriers to
Gentiles. (2) It is brought into being by the amends-making death of
Christ, allowing us to be purified to receive God’s Spirit. (3) It not
only commands us to live righteously but also empowers such obedience.
29. A
fully sanctified life does not take hold all at once. Even so, in the
main, one will serve Christ by the Spirit’s power rather than sin by human
power. As Paul says in his letter to the Philippians, “with fear and
trembling work at your own salvation; for God is the one who is at work in
you, [effecting] both the willing and the working for his good pleasure”
(2:12-13). Note the wonderful balance here: we are to work at our own
salvation but such working is nothing other than letting God work in us.
Not to progress in holiness is to resist actively the work of God in one’s
life. And as Paul says later in the same letter: “not that I have already
been made perfect (or: reached the goal), but I press on to make it my
own. . . . forgetting what lies behind and straining to what lies ahead”
(3:12-14). When we fail, we get up, push on, and forget about the failures
of the past. We renew our resolve to crucify the sin-controlled life, not
by our own efforts but by the power of God, and thereby to reach the goal
of eternal life.
30. The
vice list of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 begins with pornoi (sexually
immoral people), idolaters, adulterers, “soft men,” and men who lie with
males. The reason that pornoi are mentioned separately from other
sexual offenders is that the main issue at hand is still the case of the
incestuous man, who is designated as a pornos in 1 Corinthians 5.
Hence, pornoi is put at the head of the vice list, leapfrogging
over idolatry (which is sometimes placed first in vice lists). Given that
the ensuing discussion in 6:12-20 and 7:2 puts sex with prostitutes and
sex outside the bond of marriage, respectively, under the rubric of
porneia, reference to adulterers and participants in male-male
intercourse in 6:9 should be understood as further specifying what
pornoi might include (cf. 5:11 where pornoi appears in a nearly
identical vice list as the sole designation for various forms of sexual
immorality). Similarly, 1 Timothy 1:10 singles out immediately after
pornoi “men who lie with males” (arsenokoitai)—not because
arsenokoitai are distinct from pornoi but because
arsenokoitai are a particularly egregious instance of pornoi.
31. The
connection between engaging in a pattern of self-affirmed sexual
immorality and exclusion from the eternal life of the kingdom of God is
unmistakable in Paul. Thus he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in
the earliest extant New Testament document:
For you know what commands we gave to you through the Lord
Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from
sexual immorality (porneia)
. . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because
the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us
not to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these
commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us.
(1 Thess 4:2-8)
And to
the Galatian Christians:
The works of the flesh are obvious, which
are: sexual immorality (porneia), sexual uncleanness
(akatharsia), licentiousness
(aselgeia) . . . , which I am warning you about, just as I warned
you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the
kingdom of God. . . .
Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for
whatever one sows that one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into
one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh,
but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal
life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for
in due time we will reap,
if
we do not relax our
efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)
And again to the
Corinthians, in the context of how to deal with a practicing,
self-affirming Christian participant in an incestuous adult union:
Or do you not realize that unrighteous people will not
inherit God's kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually
immoral (the pornoi),
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft men (malakoi),
nor men who lie with males (arsenokoitai) . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.
And these things some of you used to be.
But you washed yourselves off, you were made holy (sanctified), you were
made righteous (justified) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
Spirit of our God.
(1 Cor 6:9-11).
In 2 Corinthians Paul
expresses deep concern that
I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their
former sinning and did not repent of the sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), sexual immorality (porneia), and licentiousness (aselgeia) that they practiced. (12:21)
Therefore, God gave them over, in the
desires of their hearts, to a sexual uncleanness (akatharsia)
consisting of their bodies being dishonored among themselves. . . . to
dishonorable passions, for even their females exchanged the natural use
(i.e., of the male as regards sexual intercourse) for that which is
contrary to nature; 27and likewise also the males, having left
behind the natural use of the female (as regards sexual intercourse), were
inflamed with their yearning for one another, males with males committing
indecency and in return receiving in themselves the payback which was
necessitated by their straying.
Later,
in Rom 6:19-22, Paul urged Roman believers to reverse this trend:
For just as you presented your members as
slaves to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) and to [other types of]
lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness, so now present your members as
slaves to righteousness for the sake of holiness (or: sanctification). For
when you were slaves of sin, you were free with respect to [the demands
of] righteousness. What fruit did you have at that time? Things of which
you are now ashamed, because the end (or: outcome) of those things is
death. But now, since you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God,
you have your fruit for holiness (or: sanctification), and the end (or:
outcome) is eternal life.
The
message of Colossians and Ephesians is similar:
So put to death the members that belong to the earth: sexual
immorality (porneia),
sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), passion, evil desire . . . because of which things the
wrath of God is coming [on the children of disobedience], in which things
you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now put away all
(such) things . . . , because you have stripped off the old humanity with
its practices and clothed yourselves with the new, which is being renewed
into knowledge according to the image of the one who created it. (Col
3:5-10)
[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles walk, . . . who . . . have
given themselves up to licentiousness (aselgeia) for
the doing of every sexual uncleanness (akatharsia). . . . Sexual immorality (porneia) and sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) of any kind . . . must not even be named among you, as is
proper among saints. . . . Know this indeed, that every sexually immoral
person (pornos)
or sexually unclean person (akathartos) . . . has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of
God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things
the wrath of God is coming on the children of disobedience. (Eph 4:17-19;
5:3-6)
And so too the
Pastoral Epistles:
The law is not laid down for the
righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and sinners,
the unholy and profane, killers of fathers and killers of mothers,
murderers, the sexually immoral (pornoi), males who take other
males to bed (arsenokoitai), kidnappers (or: slave dealers), liars,
perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching that accords
with the gospel. (1 Tim 1:9-11)
32. The
other main interpretation, that Ham’s offense was voyeurism, does not do
justice to the statement that Noah “came to know what his youngest son had
done to him” (9:24). Nor does it explain adequately the severity of
the curse and its placement on Ham’s ‘seed,’ Canaan. It ignores the fact
that the expression “see the nakedness of” is used elsewhere with
reference to sexual intercourse (Lev 20:17; similarly, “uncover the
nakedness of” throughout Leviticus 18 and 20). It also overlooks the
background story of incestuous homosexual rape in the Egyptian myth of
Horus and Seth. Among those who interpret the story as involving immoral
sexual intercourse are: Hermann Gunkel, Gerhard von Rad, Christoph Levin,
Thomas Schmidt, Donald Wold, Athalya Brenner, and Martti Nissenen. The
Babylonian Talmud records a debate ca.
A.D.
225 between two rabbis about the meaning of “had done to him” in Gen 9:24:
one suggesting castration, the other homosexual relations (Sanhedrin
70a). See Gagnon 2001a, 63-71.
33. Cf.
the use of the term “the abominable” in Rev 21:8 (paralleled by “dogs” in
22:15) as a designation for those participating in homosexual cult
activity.
34.
Testament of Asher 7:1 states clearly that the men of Sodom “did not
recognize the Lord’s angels” (similarly Philo and Josephus). Hebrews 13:2
may provide an inverted echo of this sentiment when it advises that
hospitality be shown to strangers “for thereby some have entertained
angels unawares.”
36. The issue of coercion was secondary.
As with Rom 1:24 the language of impurity is applied to sinful
desires. In a highly tendentious review of The Bible and Homosexual
Practice, L. William Countryman charges that my reading of Jude 7 is
an example of exegetical carelessness (Anglican Theological Review
85:1 [Winter 2003]: 196). Countryman insists that the phrase “in
a manner similar to these,” a back-reference to the mention of the angelic
“Watchers” in Jude 6, mandates that the sole and exclusive sin of Sodom in
Jude’s eyes was attempted sex with angels. All Countryman has demonstrated
is his own lack of exegetical precision. Nothing in the wording of Jude 7
dictates an exact correspondence with the sin of the Watchers and, in
fact, there cannot be an exact correspondence since the story of Sodom
depicts offenders who are unaware of angels in their midst. In my review
of Countryman’s review, I expand on my discussion in Homosexuality and
the Bible by pointing to six indications that ekporneusasai
(“having committed sexual immorality”) in Jude 7 alludes at least in part
to intended male-male intercourse. See
http://robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoCountrymanResp.pdf (pp. 10-14) or
http://robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm.
76. Cf.
Gagnon 2001a, 251-53. The plot structure of 1:18-32 can be diagrammed as
follows:
Stage 1: God’s invisible transcendence and
majesty is visibly manifested in creation (1:19-20).
Stage 2: Despite this ample evidence
regarding the true God, humans knowingly and thus foolishly “exchanged”
this God for manufactured gods of their own making, idols (1:21-23, 25,
28).
Stage 3: God withdrew his guidance and
“gave over” humans to the overpowering, self-degrading desires of their
unfit mind (1:24, 26, 28). Seeking to master God, humans were turned over
by God to passions that mastered them. Among the range of “improper” and
evil behaviors to which humans were subjected and in which they acquiesced
(1:28-31), Paul focuses at the outset on a particularly self-evident,
appalling, and ironic instance of human suppression of the truth about God
in nature: the “exchange” of opposite-sex intercourse, which he defines as
“natural,” for same-sex intercourse, which he defines as “contrary to
nature” (1:24, 26-27).
Stage 4: The sins of humans are then
heaped up and, in turn, call forth the ultimate recompense of “death”
(1:32).
There are three uses of the word
“exchanged” ([met]ēllaxan) in 1:18-32 but only two of these (1:23,
25) refer to the same basic act in Stage 2: the foolish human exchange of
God for idols. The second of these, in 1:25, appears in the midst of the
mention of same-sex intercourse (1:24-27) and provides a flashback to
1:21-23. It is designed to remind the reader that the punishment of
same-sex intercourse fits the crime of idolatry. The same intent,
apparently, comes across in the third use of “exchanged,” in 1:26—but
referring not to the exchange of God for idols (Stage 2) but rather to a
disoriented human exchange of natural sexual intercourse for unnatural
sexual intercourse (Stage 3). The foolish and self-degrading exchange
of the truth about God in creation leads to a foolish and self-degrading
exchange of the truth about human sexuality in nature. The
reference in 1:28a to “failing to acknowledge God” restates, without
repeating the precise word “exchanged,” the same essential act of
exchanging God for idols charged in 1:23 and 1:25 (Stage 2). Paul states
the back reference in 1:28a in order to preface the resumption of a list
of vices (1:29-31) already begun with the extended discussion of the
particularly shocking vice of same-sex intercourse (1:24, 26-27).
The word “gave over” (paredōken) is
used three times in 1:18-32; all three occurrences refer to the same basic
action by God (Stage 3). The occurrences, in 1:24 and 1:26, immediately
follow the references to the human exchange of God for idols (1:23, 25):
the divine “giving over” is a response to the human “exchange.” The third
occurrence, in 1:28b, does not correlate with the third reference to
“exchanged” in 1:26 (now applied to the human exchange of natural sex for
unnatural sex) but rather with the synonymous reference to failing to
acknowledge God in 1:28a.
One should note here that while the “wrath
of God” is initially revealed in God’s stepping back and allowing humans
to be mastered by self-degrading passions, it is not exhausted in this
semi-passive act. By continuing in their sinful deeds, humans heap up
their sins and render themselves liable to the climactic manifestation of
God’s judgment on the “Day of Wrath” (2:3, 5, 8-9, 12). Therefore, it is
not quite right to say that same-sex intercourse is not a cause, reason,
or provocation of God’s wrath but only a consequence or result of
it (e.g., Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1980], 47; Hays 1994, 8-9). Nevertheless, it is important to
bear in mind that God’s judgment is not limited to striking people with
thunderbolts or other climactic acts. Judgment starts with allowing humans
to engage in the self-dishonoring behaviors that they want to engage in.
Engaging in same-sex intercourse, Paul argues, is its own initial
“payback” (1:27) because it distorts the stamp of gender given at
creation.
114.
Contrast my discussion on pp. 41-42; Gagnon 2001a, 341-46, 487-89.
115. His
appeal to the books of Job and Ecclesiastes (p. 23) does not constitute a
method, nor is it a particularly apt justification for overturning the
united witness of Scripture against same-sex intercourse. In the end Job
recognizes that he has overstepped his bounds in questioning God, even
before the closing prose section, while the author of Ecclesiastes does
not, in the end, give way to complete moral relativism. The idea that the
Deuteronomistic Historian had no sense that bad things happen to good
people is vastly overdone. There are many stories in the Deuteronomistic
History that show the righteous suffering—and not just in the alleged
exilic redaction. Neither Job nor Ecclesiastes overturns a fundamental
tenet of Scripture. Neither gives Via or other pro-homosex advocates the
kind of unrestricted license to deviate radically from a pervasive,
strong, and absolute witness of Scripture against homosexual practice that
they need to justify their position. It is important to remember that no
less a figure than Jesus himself made appeal to the creation texts for
defining normative and prescriptive sexual relations (Mark 10:6-9). As we
show on pp. 68-74, Jesus himself upheld the creation prerequisite of
other-sex unions. In justifying his radical departure from Scripture, Via
also brings considerations from science into the mix but, as we shall see,
he confuses both what science tells us and how to assess its import for
Scripture’s prohibition of homosexual practice.
116. See
pp. 61-62, 65, 71-72, 77-78, 85-86, 89; Gagnon 2001a, 193-96, 289-93.
117. See
pp. 68-76; Gagnon 2001a, 185-228, 432-41.
118.
Briefly, the Levitical Holiness Code (1) specifically refers to the
forbidden sex acts in chs. 18 and 20 as “iniquity” or “sin” (18:25), (2)
does not penalize persons without willful intent, (3) does not permit
absolution merely through ritual acts, and (4) gives an implicit rationale
for each prohibition. Via largely overlooks the fact that purity taboos
often function as an additional support for moral rules, especially in the
secretive and pleasurable area of sexual intercourse. See pp. 66-67.
Regarding (2), Via says that uncleanness is “a non-intentional, automatic
contagion.” That is true of ritual uncleanness. Even accidental contact
with an impure contaminant (e.g., disease, corpse, food, semen,
childbirth) can render one unclean. That is manifestly not what is at
issue here. Intent to violate the prohibition is presumed and raped
persons are not penalized; hence the phrase “their blood is upon them,”
which denotes culpability for willful acts (20:10-13, 16). Regarding (4),
each prohibition has an implicit rationale. For example: Incest was sex
with the “flesh of one’s flesh” (18:6). Adultery was an obvious tearing
apart of another man’s one-flesh covenant bond with his wife. Bestiality
was a revolting “mixing” of two structurally incongruous creatures. How
much explanation does Via want? These are “prime numbers” of human sexual
ethics that do not require extended explanation, especially within the
genre of a list of laws. On issues surrounding the prohibition of sex with
a menstruating woman, see nn. 41 and 48 above.
120. In
other words, it involves doing with another male what God intended by
creation design to be done with a woman. Even Via admits that in ancient
Israel there is a rationale behind this rule: It treats a male as
something other than the gender that God made him to be, namely, as a
female. This, in turn, violates masculine honor. Via wrongly tries to make
this into a purely misogynistic consideration. Yet even Via’s distortion
is still a rationale and, as such, it shows the falsity of Via’s label
“pre-rational sensibility.” The author(s) of the Holiness Code had a
reason for proscribing male-male intercourse. The reason given, albeit in
very concise formulation, is not unlike the rationale utilized by Paul for
proscribing same-sex intercourse, a rationale that Paul partly derived
from the view of male-female sexuality put forward in Gen 1:26-28 and
2:18-24 (pp. 64-65).
121.
Incidentally, Via’s attempt to impugn all nature arguments on the
basis of 1 Cor 11:14 (p. 22) is way off the mark; see Gagnon 2001a,
373-78. To turn Via’s argument around: If nature—that is, structural
design in material creation—gives no authoritative directions about
allowable sexual behavior, does Via want to regard also prohibitions of
man-mother incest and human-animal sex as baseless?
122.
That is why having sex with a person of the same sex invariably
compromises the integrity of one’s own sexuality. The malakoi that
Paul mentions in 1 Cor 6:9—effeminate males who play the sexual role of
females—are merely an extreme and overt example of persons who,
tragically, try to play the role of that missing other half. A disordered
“homoerotic orientation” can never alter the fact that the other sexual
half or counterpart necessary for sexual reintegration is missing. Issues
of “orientation” may affect pastoral care strategies in deterring
persons from engaging in homosexual behavior. But they do not lead to a
different moral valuation of the non-complementary and incongruous
character of same-sex intercourse. Again, sex is not just more intimacy.
It is intimacy with one-flesh merger in view. If it were otherwise, then
sex with one’s parent or sibling, with a child, or with an animal would be
acceptable. A sexual counterpart can neither be too much alike (incest,
same-sex intercourse) nor too much other (bestiality, pedophilia).
Structural considerations take precedence over intimacy needs, even when
measurable harm cannot be proven in all circumstances. Sexual relations
require regulation in areas where non-sexual relations go unregulated.
Jesus wants us to love everyone but not to have sex with everyone. The
Bible does have a distinctive sex ethic (contra Wink 1999, 44; idem 2002a,
33).
123. I
am using the term structuralist to describe the view put forward in
the previous paragraph; namely, that proper sexual pairing requires a
binary relationship between the sexes—a relationship based on the
structural complementarity of maleness and femaleness that transcends
issues regarding the directedness of human sexual desire. I am not using
the term in the different ways that it is employed in cultural
anthropology, psychology, or linguistics.
Ironically, Via himself employs the historical context to show that Paul’s
indictment of homosexual practice was not limited to pederasty but rather
applied to all homosexual acts, including those that were lifelong and
committed (pp. 11-12). If Paul himself “absolutized the rule” by
prohibiting homosexual and incestuous relationships that were otherwise
loving, non-promiscuous, and nonexploitative, how could I and others be
charged with incorrectly bringing the notion of absolute rules to the
Bible and of making a move not required by the Bible itself? It makes no
sense. Later, as a basis for eliminating the prohibition of same-sex
intercourse altogether, Via tries to argue that Paul was ignorant of a
homosexual “orientation.” But this claim, however misguided, does not
contravene the fact that Paul absolutized some rules, including the
one on homosexual practice. Via can try to argue that Paul was mistaken to
do so in this particular case and that we should no longer treat the rule
as absolute—it is a bad argument but he has a scholarly right to try to
make it. Yet he cannot reasonably argue that I and others are importing
absolute values into the New Testament.
My main point is Via’s logical inconsistency. Probably—hopefully—Via would
not approve of any adult incest and multiple-partner unions—to say
nothing of ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents), pedophilia
(attraction to children), and bestiality—no matter the self-justifying
motives and intentions of the participants. Would disregarding loving
intent here mean that Via is “instantiating” such phenomenon “in the realm
of unclean/clean rather than in the realm of sin/righteousness (the moral
realm),” as he accuses me, Hays, and Jones and Yarhouse of doing with
homosexual practice (p. 27)? Or does it mean that Via is coming “into
conflict with those important strands in both Testaments that maintain the
reciprocal interaction between actions and the dispositions of the heart”
(ibid.)? The obvious answer to both questions is “No.” Scripture itself
proscribes absolutely quite a number of behaviors, in matters of sex
(including same-sex intercourse) and in other areas (for example,
idolatry). There is no conflict or even tension between such categorical
prohibitions and the claim of God on one’s heart. Take again the example
of the absolute rule against sexual intercourse between a man and his
mother. The dispositions of the acting person’s heart play no role in
overriding the prohibition, no matter how loving the intent and motive
might be, as Paul’s handling of the incest case in 1 Cor 5 makes clear.
These dispositions do play a role, however, in obeying “from the
heart” the proscription given by God (Rom 6:17). God puts a claim not only
on an outward show of obedience but also on an interior compliance with
the will of God.
127.
This seems to be an affliction that many pro-homosex scholars suffer from.
This is the same problem with Nancy Duff and Walter Wink (see “Fuller
Bibliography” at my website for references to their work and my critique
of it). See also the quote from Epictetus at the start of my rejoinder to
Via.
Although Via adopts a “one size fits all” approach to the four positions,
he himself unknowingly adopts two of the four positions. Here’s how Via
puts it: “I take the third [position for all rules]. . . If one takes
this way [i.e., the third position], it can lead to two different
conclusions”: (1) exceptions are made to the rule; and (2) the rule itself
is invalidated. “With regard to many issues I would take the first of
these, but with respect to homosexuality I will argue for the second.” In
other words, Via seems to be saying that a person taking the third
position could choose one of two options. However, the second option for
the third position is merely a restatement of the second position.
In early Judaism maintaining hierarchical gender roles was, to be sure, a
concern in the critique of homoeroticism. Yet even this concern was a part
of a broader critique of the anatomical, procreative, and interpersonal
discomplementarity of same-sex intercourse. Homoerotic behavior first and
foremost constituted a complaint against the gendered material body that
God bestowed in nature (Gagnon 2001a, 164-83).
The circumstance becomes even more tragic when the same-sex sex-partner
tries to take on the features of the opposite sex—for example, the
malakoi in Paul’s day. Then a person becomes a sad parody of the true
sexual self. A man cannot fake being a woman, or a woman a man. It is
about being more than becoming. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 put it nicely: a
man should not have a sex with a male “as though having sex with a woman.”
By its very nature sex is about integrating with a sexual other, not a
sexual same. It is about two interlocking pieces, in the sexual realm,
becoming a single sexual piece. Anatomy and physiology (particularly
procreative potential) are two obvious indicators of complementarity but
maleness and femaleness run deeper still. The bottom line is: A person
ought not to have sexual relations with his/her parent. A person ought not
to have sex with an animal. And a person should not have sexual relations
with a person of the same sex. This is not about status. It is about the
structural integrity of human sexuality.
Via states: “Given what we now know about the genetic, social and
psychological causes of homosexuality, and the graciousness of God’s
creative intention . . . , it is difficult to accept Paul’s view that
universal human rebellion and God’s wrath, in their mutual interaction,
are the primary cause of homosexuality” (p. 14). Via misunderstands the
argument in Romans 1:24-27. The sense in which Paul addresses the issue of
causation for homoerotic desire in 1:24-27 is the same as that for the
continuation of the vice list in 1:29-31 (including greed, envy, murder,
strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, arrogance, and
disobedience to parents). All that Paul is saying is that persons who
suppress the truth about God transparent in the created order are more
likely to suppress other truths transparent in the created order,
including the truth about male-female sexual complementarity. Certainly a
comparison of the numbers of people engaged in homoerotic behavior among
the Greco-Roman “pagan” population and numbers of those within the nation
of Israel underscores this point. The issue in 1:24-27 is not so much
origination of homoerotic desire as the gratification of preexisting
sinful desire in spite of the transparent structural evidence in
creation/nature advising against such gratification. At the same time,
there is evidence in our own day that cultural incentives can increase the
incidence even of homosexuality (Gagnon 2001a, 401-29). As for “the
graciousness of God’s creative intention,” of course God is gracious. But
Paul, Jesus, and the rest of the witness of Scripture also make quite
clear that God does judge those who rebel against the truth and refuse to
repent. Then, too, homoerotic desire does not originate at birth, to say
nothing of establishment at creation. And is Via unable to think of any
congenitally-based sinful desires?
132.
Persons engaging in same-sex intercourse knew, or should have known, based
on natural revelation, that males and females were designed as
complementary sexual fits. Instead they suppressed this truth, justified
to themselves their homoerotic desires, and engaged in same-sex
intercourse. Even Bernadette Brooten acknowledges this sense for
exchanged and leaving behind. “Paul could have believed that
tribades, the ancient kinaidoi, and other sexually unorthodox
persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and
shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word ‘exchanged’ to indicate
that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it
behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the
unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Brooten, 244).
134. See
also: Gagnon 2001a, 353-54, 384-85, 392-94. The discussion in Gagnon 2003,
137-41, along with accompanying online notes, significantly adds to the
treatment of sexual orientation in antiquity in Gagnon 2001a. These
theories ran the gamut from essentialist to constructionist, from nature
to nurture, including nurture-becomes-nature. They comprise more than the
“small circles” that Via suggests (p. 15).
135.
Some of these theories are closer to contemporary speculations about
homosexual causation than others. In addition, most of them focus more on
passive receptive roles for males and active (sometimes penetrative) roles
for women. Even so, the relevance of these theories cannot be discounted.
First, passive receptive roles for males and active roles for women were
commonly expressed in homoerotic activity. Second, a couple of the
theories do suggest a primary homosexual orientation for some or all
active males and passive females as well. Greek and Roman literature also
makes reference to exclusive same-sex attraction on the part of some
males, even among the married. For example, the figure of Aristophanes in
Plato’s Symposium underscores that marriage for the homoerotically-inclined
was a façade: “And when they reach manhood, they become lovers of boys and
are not inclined by nature toward marriage and the procreation of
children, yet are compelled to do so by law/custom (nomos)”
(192A-B). Third, the distinction between roles and orientation would carry
less significance in a Judeo-Christian framework that held all
homoerotic activity to be contrary to nature, not just homoerotic behavior
practiced by women and by feminized passive males (see n. 99 above).
136.
Richard Hays’s otherwise fine work on the subject of the Bible and
homosexuality errs at this point. Hays argues, against Boswell, that all
talk about sexual orientation is anachronistic. However, Boswell’s point
was not that Paul was distinguishing between natural and unnatural
homosexuals but rather that Paul assumed all people who engaged in
same-sex intercourse had a heterosexual nature. Via (p. 24) adopts
Boswell’s argument and supplies the rebuttal to Hays that I had already
anticipated (Gagnon 2001a, 382-83). However, Hays, Boswell, and Via are
all wrong on this score. The new trend, in my work and in the work of
Schoedel and Brooten (albeit with differences), is to recognize that
something akin to a concept of sexual orientation already existed in
antiquity.
137.
Also with Philo, Paul at least understood such a proclivity to be “hard to
fight against,” a condition which socialization could work into the soul
from early childhood and so lessen individual choice over time (cf. Philo,
Abraham
136; Contemplative Life 60; Special Laws 3.37). Even William
Schoedel, who writes from a pro-homosex perspective, acknowledges that
Philo would not have permitted any homosexual behavior, whatever the
influence of congenital factors: “Since Philo stresses the overwhelming
power of pleasure…, a similar conception [to Plato’s Timaeus] of a
psychological disorder socially engendered or reinforced and genetically
transmitted may be presupposed. . . . The suggestion that Paul is speaking
only of same-sex acts performed by those who are by nature heterosexual is
a possibility that finds some support in at least one of the passages from
Philo . . . (cf. Ab 135). But such a phenomenon does not excuse
some other form of same-sex eros in the mind of a person like Philo. . . .
Paul’s wholesale attack on Greco-Roman culture makes better sense if, like
Josephus and Philo, he lumps all forms of same-sex eros together as a mark
of Gentile decadence” ( “Same-Sex Eros: Paul and the Greco-Roman
Tradition,” in Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of
Scripture [ed. D. L. Balch; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 56, 67-68).
Schoedel had earlier in the same article commented: “Both [Bernadette]
Brooten and I find problematic the common view that sexual orientation was
not recognized in the ancient world” (47 n. 5). Schoedel, however, does
not consistently apply the logic of this crucial admission to Paul (cf. my
critique in Gagnon 2001a, 392-95).
138.
According to Via, “there is [no] clear evidence” that Paul conceived of
some forms of homoerotic attraction as relatively exclusive, persistent,
and controlling, with some influence from biology early in life (p. 16). I
would rephrase the matter as: I see no clear evidence proving the obverse
but rather good indications that he did have such a conception. Moreover,
there is an even stronger indication that modern-day theories of sexual
orientation are compatible with Paul’s concept of sin. In the end, the
biblical objection to homosexual behavior is framed so absolutely and
strongly, with a conception of male and female as uniquely complementary
sexual halves, that the burden of proof is on Via to justify a massive
departure from the scriptural witness. If the Bible is “the highest
authority for Christians in theological and ethical matters,” as Via
admits, then it is up to Via to establish: (1) that Paul could not have
conceived of a relatively entrenched and exclusive form of homoeroticism;
and (2) that knowledge of such would have been enough to cause Paul and
all the other writers of Scripture to do a complete about-face on
homosexual practice. As it is, Via has not demonstrated either point.
139. The
arguments adduced up till now strongly suggest the implausibility of Via’s
view; namely, that Paul’s absolute and intense proscription of homosexual
behavior rests entirely on the mistaken conviction that homoerotic
attraction is always freely chosen, always coexistent with
strong heterosexual desire, and always susceptible to complete
change. Uncertainty on any of these assumptions destroys the
credibility of Via’s attempt at a biblical argument for same-sex
intercourse. Otherwise, a core value of Scripture on any ethical matter
could be overturned merely on the basis of highly questionable assumptions
about what the biblical writers were or were not thinking.
140.
This was particularly the case with males who desired to be penetrated.
Cf. the Aristotelian texts, the medical text by Soranus, and the
astrological texts.
141. Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1148b. We still recognize the
validity of such a distinction. Nature makes mistakes that are not in
accord with its well-working processes; for example, severe congenital
defects, disease, a predisposition toward alcoholism, and biologically
related sexual attractions for children. Now, if these texts could make
such a distinction within a cultural milieu that did not indict severely
all participants in homoerotic behavior, what is the likelihood
that Paul would have stopped calling same-sex intercourse “contrary to
nature” had he only known of a homosexual orientation? The idea is
inconceivable, given that Paul operated within a scriptural and cultural
milieu that regarded all same-sex intercourse as contrary to God’s
creation design. Does Via want to argue that Paul would have ended up more
open to homosexual activity than his Greek and Roman counterparts when the
latter started with a more affirming, or at least equivocal, view of some
homosexual activity?
142.
Paul did not characterize all biologically related impulses as existing
according to nature. He distinguished between, on the one hand, innate
passions perverted by the fall and exacerbated by idol worship and, on the
other hand, that part of material creation least likely to be marred by
human sin. The latter would be the best indication of God’s intended
structural design for human sexuality. Immediately following his reference
to same-sex intercourse, Paul gives a list of other vices that certainly
have some innate basis—for example, covetousness, envy, and arrogance—and
yet do not for that reason accord with nature (1:29-31). Innate desires
are notoriously unreliable indicators of God’s will, as an array of
sexually impure impulses also proves. Paul would never have described as
according to nature a sexual orientation that, from a scriptural
standpoint, was incompatible with essential embodied existence as a
gendered being. There are two sexes, each structurally configured and
open-ended to the other. Neither male sexuality nor female sexuality
represents, by itself, whole sexuality. If a sexual merger with another is
to be had, it must be with “the other half” in order to become a sexually
whole, “one flesh” being. The absence of a gender complement in same-sex
intercourse and the attendant violation of the stamp of gender on the
sexual self (of which the malakoi are an extreme case in point) are
nature’s primary clues.
143. Why
then would the notion of biological causation for some homoerotic
attraction have made any difference to Paul’s view of same-sex
intercourse? If Paul could be transported into the twenty-first century
and told that homoerotic desires have (at most) a partial and indirect
connection to innate causation factors, he doubtless would have said
either “I could have told you that” or at very least “That fits well into
my own understanding of sin.” I think the former is more likely, with some
fine tuning, than the latter. At any rate, either response produces the
same hermeneutical result. In short, Via has no basis for supposing that
one of today’s understandings of “homosexual orientation” would have
caused Paul to approve of homosexual activity. To that extent, Via has no
real hermeneutical basis for doing an end run around the authority of
Scripture.
It is disconcerting to see what for Via suffices as the catalyst for a sea
change in Scripture’s view of homosexual behavior: the mere fact that
there may be a biological contribution to some homosexual behavior
(though not the determinative cause, we might add); or that not every
single homosexual relationship produces scientifically measurable harm
(though even Via admits harm is disproportionately high, with only a small
percentage of unions being healthy, monogamous, and lifelong); or that the
elimination of all homoerotic impulses is probably not the norm (though
change is possible for all at one level or another). In my view, that
is an inappropriate use of science in relation to the revelatory authority
of Scripture.
145. For
his discussion of the scientific evidence Via appears to rely almost
exclusively on an article by Christine Gudorf entitled “The Bible and
Science on Sexuality” (2000; cited by Via on pp. 15-17). I had previously
identified a number of serious problems with Gudorf’s article (Gagnon
2000, 196-216; on science, 199-201, 205-7), though Via seems unaware of
such problems. Via can be misleading, if not inaccurate, even in citing
Gudorf. Via writes on p. 17: “Studies on homosexual and heterosexual
persons who are not psychiatric patients suggest that there are no
significant differences between the two with regard to psychological
health, criminality, dependability or social responsibility. This implies
that homosexuality in itself is not pathological (Gudorf, 128).” Most
readers will not pick up the crucial phrase “persons who are not
psychiatric patients.” Even Gudorf acknowledges that the studies to which
she refers are “not necessarily representative of the [homosexual]
population, and thus one cannot conclude that the heterosexual and
homosexual populations are equal in character or adjustment.” In fact, her
phrase “not necessarily” is also misleading. There are enough studies to
indicate disproportionately high rates of sexually transmitted disease,
mental illness, numbers of sex partners, and failed sexual relationships.
One can debate the reasons for the disproportionately high rates of
harmful side effects—societal “homophobia” and/or the same-sex quality of
the relationships—but one cannot debate the high rates themselves. In the
end, too, societal stigmatizing of homosexual behavior cannot explain the
various disparities between heterosexuals and homosexuals. See n. 167
below. Via also cites a Kinsey statistic from Edwards on p. 16, seemingly
unaware of the flawed nature of Kinsey’s research.
Edward Stein, a pro-homosex scholar, challenges deterministic models of
homosexual development and posits instead a nondeterministic model that
incorporates a significant role for indirect choice: The Mismeasure of
Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999). Like various forms of sexual
disorders (paraphilias), the degree to which a homosexual “orientation”
becomes fixed in an individual’s brain can be related to lifestyle choices
regarding fantasy life, the extent of participation in homosexual
activity, and degree of self-motivation for change. Cf. Jeffrey A.
Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1996), 132-45.
147. Via
talks this way even though he once refers to sexual orientation as a
condition “fixed relatively early in life” (p. 16). To be sure, this too
is a misleading generalization but at least it does not go so far as to
assume that sexual orientation is determined at birth. In linking
homoerotic proclivity with creation and nature Via ignores the significant
divide between being and becoming and between a fait
accompli and a mere possibility.
148.
Significant childhood gender nonconformity is widely recognized as a risk
factor for, or indicator of, later homosexual development. See Gagnon
2001a, 408.
149.
Intervention by therapists and/or parents can reduce the risk of
developing an exclusive homosexual orientation. The goal of such
intervention is often to treat legitimate needs for intimate, but
nonsexual, gender identity affirmation from persons of the same-sex Cf.
Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing
Homosexuality (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002).
150.
This is true even of those who identify as having an exclusive homoerotic
attraction (Kinsey’s category 6). As one homosexual minister-scholar who
left his marriage for a homosexual partnership put it to me
(paraphrasing): “For most gays having sex with a woman is like a
right-handed person playing tennis left-handed; it can be done with some
satisfaction but it is not nearly as satisfying as it might be.” Lesbians
are even more prone to heterosexual stimuli.
151. Cf.
Satinover 1996, 179-95; Jones and Yarhouse 2000b, 117-51; Warren
Throckmorton, “Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome
Literature and Ethical Issues,” Journal of Mental Health Counseling 20
(1998): 283-304 (online:
http://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html); idem, “Initial
Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for
Ex-Gays,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33/3 (June
2002): 242-48. That sexual orientation change is possible is
confirmed in: Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change
Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from
Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior
32 (2003): 403-17. Spitzer concludes: “Thus, there is evidence that change
in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur
in some gay men and lesbians” (abstract). Cf. J. W. Robinson,
“Understanding the Meaning of Change for Married Latter-Day Saint Men with
Histories of Homosexual Activity” (Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University,
1998). Among older literature, see especially: D. Barlow, “Increasing
heterosexual responsiveness in the treatment of sexual deviation: A review
of the clinical and experimental evidence,” Behavior Therapy 4
(1973): 655-71; idem, “Fading to Increase Heterosexual Responsiveness in
Homosexuals,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 6 (1973):
355-66; A. E. Bergin, “A Self-Regulation Technique for Impulse Control
Disorders,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 6 (1969):
113-18; J. Wolpe, The Practice of Behavior Therapy (2d ed.; New
York: Pergamon Press, 1978). (I am grateful to Warren Throckmorton for
some guidance here. Throckmorton is Director of College Counseling at
Grove City College and a past president of the American Mental Health
Counselors Association.)
152.
Change
for homosexually aroused persons can range from (1) a significant
reduction or elimination of homosexual behavior; to (2) a reduction in the
intensity and frequency of homosexual impulses; to (3) an experience of
some heterosexual arousal; to (4) reorientation to predominant
heterosexuality. Step (1) is possible for every believer through the
empowerment of the Spirit of Christ (and probably step [2] for most). Some
would claim that step (1) does not involve a change in sexual
“orientation.” But it really does involve such a change since one’s life
has been reoriented away from satisfying one’s own desires and toward the
doing of God’s will. The Spirit, not sin, is in control of that person’s
sexual behavior and objectives.
-
Will probably do harm to
the participants
-
Makes it more likely
that sexually confused young persons will develop homosexual identities
-
Makes it logically
impossible to deny approval to any sexual union based on structural
considerations (e.g., number, longevity, blood ties, even species)
-
Annihilates all gender
norms
-
Destroys a meaningful
authoritative status for Scripture
-
Sets in motion a very
intolerant and intimidating political agenda that will forcibly
indoctrinate our children and deny some civil rights to persons who
publicly express disapproval of the behavior
Regarding the second bullet, see the study
by G. Remafedi, et al., “Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents,”
Pediatrics 89:4 (Apr. 1992): 714-21. Here 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 (Gagnon 2001a, 398-99).
Via claims: “If it cannot be demonstrated
that homosexual practice is harmful in itself—in mutual, consensual,
committed relationships—then it cannot be shown, in Pauline terms, that it
is sinful” (p. 25). Of course, if that were the case, then Paul would
never have reacted as he did to the incident of adult—and, presumably,
committed—incest in 1 Corinthians 5. Nor could Paul have maintained an
implicit prohibition of polygamy in 1 Corinthians 7, consistent with the
implications of Jesus’ sayings on remarriage as adultery. Via states that
Paul simply “assumed homosexuality to be harmful” (ibid.). But Paul did
not assume that all acts of same-sex intercourse led to the kind of
harm that Via is talking about; namely, sexual unions that were
non-consensual and non-committed, exploitative in some manner other than
their inherent same-sexness. Indeed, Via contradicts himself at this point
since he admits elsewhere in his essay that Paul’s critique of same-sex
intercourse was not limited to particularly exploitative forms (p. 11-13).
Paul’s indictment of same-sex intercourse was obviously not generated
because homoerotic behavior often involved sex with an adolescent, slave,
or foreigner. It was generated because homoerotic behavior was homoerotic,
sex with someone who was a sexual same in structural terms. See my
discussion in pp. 76-88.
154.
This is the point of 1 Cor 6:9-11; Rom 6:19-22; 2 Cor 4:7-5:10; and many
other biblical texts.
155.
Via’s efforts on pp. 29-39 to present this “opposing biblical material”
fare as badly as his earlier claim that nothing was “intrinsically
immoral” for Jesus and Paul. Clearly, Via and those who agree with his
views are the ones who are importing philosophical positions at variance
with Scripture. A person would be hard-pressed to find a more clear-cut
and strongly held stance on behavior in the entire Bible than the one on
same-sex intercourse. What Via puts forward as “opposing biblical
material” is either material that he has misunderstood or material that,
far being opposed to a homosex prohibition, actually coexists harmoniously
with such a prohibition. Via is beckoning the church to return to the
pagan view of old, a view that did not require for legitimate sexual
unions the two halves of a sexual whole.
156. A
distinction between body (soma) and flesh (sarx),
in the Pauline sense, is critical for a discussion of homosexual impulses,
though Via ignores it. Flesh is a Pauline way of talking about this
earthly body minus the energizing activity of the Spirit of Christ. It
represents “Adamic” humanity, a humanity governed by the regulating
principle of sin operating since the fall. Body can be used in
Pauline thought for both earthly and resurrection bodies. Jesus, for his
part, distinguished between the body of this life and the animate essence
of humanity that would one day be clothed with a new, resurrection body:
“Do not fear those who kill the body, but who are not able to kill the
soul; fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna”
(Matt 10:28; Luke 12:4-5).
157.
More precisely, whether or not “sexuality is a defining feature of
human being” (Via’s emphasis) depends on what one means by sexuality
and defining feature. If all Via had meant was that how
humans behave sexually is an integral part of their life before God, then
I could concur (and I am sure Hays would as well). But that is not all
that Via meant. Via presumes that God/Scripture grants to all humans an
inalienable right to engage in sexual intercourse consistent with the
dominant directedness of their sexual desires. All structural
considerations are inconsequential so long as “the relationship is loving,
consensual, non-manipulative and faithful” (p.29). This is patently false
from a biblical perspective and it is precisely the kind of view that Hays
and I have both criticized (Gagnon 2001a, 431-32, 451-52). Jesus was quite
clear when he stated with respect to sexual expression that it was better
to go into heaven maimed than to go to hell whole-bodied (Matt 5:29-30).
In other words, one must take up one’s cross, lose one’s life, and deny
oneself in the sexual facet of life as indeed in all facets of life (Matt
16:24-26, from Mark 8:34-37; cf. Matt 10:39 // Luke 17:33; Matt 10:38 //
Luke 14:27 // Gosp. Thom. 55.20; John 12:25). Denial of strong
sexual urges, even to the point of abstaining from any sex that does not
conform to New Testament standards, can feel like a near-death experience.
Such is the the road of discipleship, the way of the cross.
Yes, Paul in the very next section, ch. 7, declares sex to be a positive
good in its own right (though Via misreads Paul a bit here) and warns
against requiring celibacy for persons who otherwise meet the
requirements for marriage. It is important to remember that the key
emphasis throughout ch. 7 is that the Corinthians not do anything that
could lead to sin (7:2, 5, 9, 10-11, 15, 28, 36, 39); or, more positively
stated, that the Corinthians “keep the commandments of God” (7:20). Paul
was adamant about prohibiting the incestuous union in ch. 5 and quite
willing to take his chances about the man’s passions “burning” (cf.7:9).
The reason is obvious: Regardless of commitment, the man was involved in a
union that did not meet the structural prerequisites of marriage. Incest
was a far worse sin than fornication (as we still recognize today; cf.1
Cor 5:1). In 7:11 Paul could also recommend that a woman who was separated
from her husband remain unmarried if she chose not to be reconciled back
to her husband (7:11)—the context suggests that she may have prodded her
husband for a divorce or otherwise initiated a divorce through direct or
indirect legal means. Again, for Paul the consideration of passions
“burning” was secondary to meeting the requirements for sexual activity
and not sinning. There is absolutely no doubt what Paul would have
responded had the community at Corinth followed up with the question, “Is
it acceptable to be an arsenokoites—a ‘lying-with-a-male’ man (1
Cor 6:9)—if a man’s sexual desires for a male are not replaced with
desires for a woman?” Undoubtedly Paul would said something like: “May it
not be so! It is no sin to refrain from sex. But it is a grave sin to
engage in same-sex intercourse.” This is why Gudorf’s position, cited
favorably by Via on p.17, is ridiculous from a Pauline perspective. A
committed homosexual union cannot be held up as a means to averting
porneia (sexual immorality) because same-sex intercourse is a more
severe instance of porneia than just about any other consensual
sexual act. In short, none of Via’s principles for human sexuality can be
abstracted from the most basic requirement of all; namely, that sex be
between the two halves of a sexual whole.
I originally wrote, following the reference to “N158”: “Via is
not reading Scripture contextually.” Michael West of Fortress Press at
first deleted this line and later, after my protest, allowed me to
substitute a passive formulation. But my point is not just that the
creation texts and 1 Cor 6-7 should be understood contextually but, more,
that Via is not reading these texts contextually. See also n. 163 below.
159. Via
also refers four times to homosexual orientation as “inalienable,” a term
that most readers will associate with the Declaration of Independence:
humans “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
However, “rights” and innate desires are two very different things.
Scripture never grants an inalienable right to the consensual exercise of
all controlling innate passions; nor for that matter does the Declaration
of Independence.
8. Where are the biblical texts stating that persistent fleshly
desires—desires that are not even primarily or directly congenital—must be
accorded the status of “part of God’s creative intent”? Of course, even
congenital desires are not necessarily accorded the status of being “part
of God’s creative intent.” But the claim for noncongenital desires is even
less secure. Where are the biblical texts that declare that consent, love,
and commitment are the only criteria for sexual unions?
“In him was life.” (John 1:4)
“I am the bread of life.” (John 6:48)
“I am the resurrection and the life.” (John
11:25)
“I am the way and the truth and the life.”
(John 14:6)
“And this is eternal life, that they may
know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
(John 17:3)
The life was made visible, and we have seen
and bear witness to and proclaim the eternal life that was with the Father
and became visible to us. (1 John 1:2)
In the last mentioned text, “idols” means
Christ-substitutes: something besides Jesus that an individual thinks must
be had to experience life to its fullest, even if having it means
violating the commands of God.
162.
According to the Fourth Evangelist, what people really want in life is
Jesus. They just do not know it—thinking falsely that life’s quest can be
satisfied by food, sex, power, wealth, or status. What Via’s discussion
misses is that the abundant life of Christ is often most profoundly
experienced in moments when we do not get what we think we need to be
happy. It is then, in these death-like experiences of great deprivation,
that the life of Christ—the life that is Christ—is formed in us: “The one
who loves his life loses it, and the one who hates his life in this world
will preserve it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me”
(John 12:25-26). Consequently, there is absolutely no contradiction
between closing off options for homosexual practice and making it possible
for those beset by strong homoerotic urges to experience abundant and
eternal life. Indeed, there is no historical doubt that the Fourth
Evangelist would have abhorred any attempt to equate abundant/eternal life
with same-sex intercourse. He would have insisted that abundant life is
actually blocked by engaging in a form of behavior that runs counter to
God’s purposes for human sexuality at creation. To assert that persons
must have a right to homosexual behavior in order to experience the
fullness of life deserves to be exposed for the lie that it is.
163. I
originally wrote: “Via again fails to read contextually.” Once again,
Michael West deleted this line but allowed me to substitute a passive
formulation. Again, my point is not just that the Gospel of John “should
be read contextually” but, more, that Via fails to read the Gospel of John
contextually (see n. 158, end). If Via wants to appeal to John’s Gospel
for the concept of full, abundant, and eternal life, he has a moral
responsibility to use the concept in a manner consistent with the use of
the Fourth Evangelist. Unfortunately, Via has truncated the biblical
concept of fullness to a point that Christians should find alarming. Does
he really want to infer that fullness of life depends on the gratification
of deeply embedded impulses of the flesh? I am not pushing for deliberate
asceticism. But I am arguing that the rigorous call of discipleship quite
often requires that we forego the satisfaction of many desires and wants
in order to fulfill God’s will for our lives and the lives of others.
Those who are homoerotically inclined do have a cross to bear. I have no
desire to minimize that. At the same time, I would not paint the situation
in the bleak colors that Via chooses, for reasons already stated. Joining
them are millions of heterosexual persons who also, for one reason or
another, have to forego a satisfying, sexually intimate union. We all bear
crosses. It is inevitable. If it is not sex it will likely be something
else. Sometimes when it comes to doing God’s will the flesh goes only
kicking and screaming. So be it. It must go. The experiences of Christians
worldwide and across centuries confirm the testimony of Jesus that it is
in our interest to take up our crosses. What emerges from that obedience
is beautiful forming of Christ in us, the hope of our glory.
Of course, Via’s partiality for the unexpected can be turned around. If
Via is looking for surprises and the unexpected, then he has one: The idea
of a persistent homosexual orientation is immaterial to Scripture’s
prohibition of same-sex intercourse; God’s creative intent and structural
design take precedence over human desire.
166. In
the context of Via’s comment comes a dismissive remark about my “final
appeal . . . to the absolute rule” (p. 36). Here is the remark in
context:
There is no way to demonstrate that
[homosexual intercourse] is a bad thing, in and of itself. Gagnon tacitly
acknowledges this in that his final appeal is to the absolute rule.
Same-sex intercourse is absolutely forbidden in all cases (450).
“Gratifying a desire for same-sex intercourse is always inherently immoral
because the biblical prohibitions are against some-sex intercourse per
se” (462).
The statement on p. 450 of The Bible and Homosexual Practice to
which Via refers comes in the context of a discussion about “what makes
the biblical mandate concerning homosexuality so hard for Christians to
ignore or downplay” (p. 449). One consideration is that, contrary to some
attempts to argue otherwise, the biblical proscription of homosexual
activity is absolute. The exegetical case for this position is made
throughout my book, but most notably on pp. 347-61. Via appears to agree
with this assessment in his essay (p 11) but later he seems to forget this
point when he argues, repeatedly, that a loving, faithful, and committed
homosexual relationship is something different from what Paul was
proscribing. Nevertheless, Via’s hermeneutical inconsistency does not
overturn his exegetical conclusion: the proscription in Paul is not
limited to exploitative homosexual behavior such as pederasty and
short-term relationships. Recognizing this point should indeed make it
“hard for Christians to ignore or downplay” the biblical prohibition—that
is, presuming one cares about Scripture and does not forget to carry over
the conclusion to hermeneutical discussion. The point that I make here is
unassailable.
The second reference cited by Via (p. 462) comes in the context of a
discussion of the Gentile inclusion analogy. I contend that one of the
reasons that this is not a good analogy for the issue of same-sex
intercourse is that there was no prohibition in the Old Testament against
being a Gentile. Jews could, and did, distinguish God-fearing Gentiles
from godless Gentiles. Consequently, affirming one’s Gentile ethnicity is
only incidentally linked to sinful behavior (Gentiles are typically sinful
but not inherently so). This is very different from the Bible’s approach
to same-sex intercourse: “the biblical prohibitions are against same-sex
intercourse per se.” As I note, “The existence of ‘righteous
gentiles’ might have been a rare or unusual phenomenon in the eyes of the
first generation of Jewish Christians, but the concept of a righteous
participant in same-sex intercourse . . . would have been a complete
oxymoron to all first-century Jews” (p. 462). The point is again
unassailable: To first-century Jews and Jewish Christians
“gratifying a desire for same-sex intercourse is always inherently immoral
because the biblical prohibitions are against some-sex intercourse per
se.”
So it
is obvious that when Via finds something wrong with these remarks he is
taking them out of context. In the first instance my “appeal to the
absolute rule” is not “final” but correctly points out that the
absoluteness of the prohibition makes it difficult to dismiss the
prohibition today on the grounds that it does not apply to nonexploitative
homosexual unions. In the second instance “appeal to the absolute rule” is
“final” but is presented as an appeal that first-century Jews and Jewish
Christians would make.
The question then arises: Do I make a “final appeal to the absolute
rule”? The answer is a qualified “yes”: Yes, but not in isolation to,
first, other arguments and, second, contextual and hermeneutical
considerations.
On the first
qualification: Of course my “final appeal” is to Scripture, within a
larger combined appeal to Scripture, nature (structural compatibility),
and high rates of negative side effects. Via himself refers to Scripture
as “the highest authority for Christians in theological and ethical
matters” (p. 2). It is a combination argument with the elements placed in
order of importance for Christians. As regards the third element, I have
already stated clearly that, so far as consensual behavior is concerned,
it is unreasonable to limit absolute proscriptions only to those behaviors
that one can prove measurable harm to all participants in all
circumstances. If Via wants to establish such an unreasonable standard as
his own, he will have to accept some forms of incest, bestiality, plural
unions, prostitution, and even pedophilia, as well as a host of non-sexual
sins, including idolatry (perhaps he does accept some forms). For most
people a high incidence in negative side effects is adequate for an
absolute prohibition, especially if accompanied by a structural argument
from nature. Each argument has its merits and demerits. The argument from
a high risk for bad side effects can be established empirically but it
does not cover every circumstance for the behavior in question. The nature
argument does cover every circumstance but it leans more heavily on
intuitive perception than empirical evidence (though there is an empirical
component). The Scripture argument can be made effectively for an absolute
prohibition of homosexual behavior. However, the extent of its influence
on decision-making will depend on the degree of authority that one accords
Scripture in a new setting. The three arguments work best in tandem, with
the highest priority given to Scripture (see Gagnon 2000, 193-95).
On the second qualification: Of course the phrase “biblical prohibitions”
(p. 462; Via calls it “the biblical rule”) means: the biblical
prohibitions examined for contextual and hermeneutical issues and for
rationale. I supply this examination in the preceding 450 pages of my
book. My appeal is not to a rule only in the sense of saying: It’s in
Leviticus, so do it. My appeal is to an entire biblical perspective on
human sexuality from the Genesis creation texts on. It is an appeal that
not only covers the full literary breadth of Scripture but also takes into
account a full range of considerations from the socio-historical context
and from hermeneutical concerns. That broader context is behind any appeal
that I make to Scripture’s absolute prohibition. My complaint with Via’s
work is not that he does too much with context matters but rather that he
does not do enough, or do it well enough, to justify the conclusions that
he reaches.
I am surprised that Via thinks this approach is odd, or that it concedes
something.
167. For
example, let pro-homosex advocates prove in the face of studies like the
ones that I cite in Gagnon 2001a, 476-78 that higher rates of psychiatric
disorders, including suicide ideation, are due exclusively or even
primarily to societal “homophobia.” As J. Michael Bailey notes (see
citation in the next paragraph), one study that “found
higher rates of mental problems among gay men was conducted in the
Netherlands. The Netherlands is probably the most tolerant country in the
world toward homosexual people. But gay men there were still about three
times as likely as straight men to have been depressed during the past
year” (p. 82).
Finally, let pro-homosex apologists prove that being erotically aroused by
one’s own sex constitutes a healthy and mature conception of human
sexuality.
©
2003 Robert A. J. Gagnon