The hypocrites of homosexuality

After Soulforce came and visited BYU last week (or was it this week? I can’t remember…), there were a handful (er, flurry) of posts on various blogs about it. And this morning as I was reading through some of them, I came across Belonging, which in turn led me to Orson Scott Card’s essay The Hypocrites of Homosexuality:

One thing is certain: one cannot serve two masters. And when one’s life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. And when I read the statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to persuade the former community to cease making their membership contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the price of such “tolerance” would be, in the long run, the destruction of the Church.

Good point. And later on:

The teachings of the Lord are clear in regard to the way we must deal with sinners. Christ treated them with compassion — as long as they confessed that their sin was a sin. Only when they attempted to pretend that their sin was righteousness did he harshly name them for what they were: fools, hypocrites, sinners. Hypocrites because they were unwilling to change their behavior and instead attempted to change the law to fit it; fools because they thought that deceiving an easily deceivable society would achieve the impossible goal of also deceiving God.

I’d never thought of it that way, but it does make sense. It’s something I’ll need to think about some more…

The repentant homosexual must be met with forgiveness. Even hypocritical homosexuals must be treated individually with compassion. But the collective behavior of the hypocrites of homosexuality must be met with our most forceful arguments and our complete intolerance of their lies. To act otherwise is to give more respect to the opinions of men than to the judgments of God.

Amen! We’re fighting against homosexuality, not homosexuals.

In fact, even outside the LDS community, it has become clearer and clearer to me, since writing this essay, that gay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. Rather they are seeking to enforce acceptance of their sexual liaisons as having equal validity with heterosexual marriages, to the point of having legal rights as spouses, the right to adopt children, and the right to insist that their behavior be taught to children in public schools as a completely acceptable “alternative lifestyle.” It does not take a homophobe to recognize how destructive such a program will be in a society already reeling from the terrible consequences of “no-fault” divorce, social tolerance of extramarital promiscuity, and failing to protect our adolescents until they can channel their sexual passions in a socially productive way. Having already lost control of the car, we now find the gay activists screaming at us to speed up as we drive headlong toward the cliff.

I love the last sentence. :) Anyway, I’ve got quite a few more posts to write today, so I’ll save discussion on this for the comments.

I came across your posting quite by accident. I haven’t had time to read any of your other postings, so I don’t know how you self identify — a “SSA” (same-sex attracted) or “gay” — or even whether you are “straight” or “bi.” Whatever…

Thought I’d respond, though, because I read Orson Scott Card’s essay many moons ago, when it was published in Dialogue. Subsequent to that, someone posted an excellent rebuttal of his article; Unfortunately, I don’t remember the title.

My concern with Card’s viewpoint, is that it is based on very homophobic perceptions of who and what homosexuals are — and that who and what they are is subject to “change.” My personal belief is that being “homosexual” is as morally neutral as being “heterosexual.” It is my contention that one can live just as fully a spiritual and moral life as a homosexual, as do many heterosexuals. And, I apply that to living in a loving, commited, monogamous homosexual relationship also. One can be absolutely moral in one’s intent in doing so.

Now I don’t call everyone homophobic, but when someone in a position of influence, such as Orson Scott Card, tends to base his opion upon traditional misinterpretations of so called “homosexual” verses of scripture — which is just what so many LDS church authorities, leaders and members are guilty of — than I think they need to be called to task.

NOW IF YOU ARE NOT THREATENED BY DOING SO: you might with to do a little in depth personal research into the 6 or 7 bible scriptures traditionally used by Mormons and others to justify their opposition to homosexuals. Generally, you’ll find they are mistranslations and misinterpretations of the original biblical language and intent. In fact, they do not even refer to homosexuality as we understand it today.

Here are a few excellent resources:
1. Interpreting What the Bible Says About Homosexuals: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=244
2. Homosexuality and the Hebrew Bible, by Rabbi Gershon Caudill:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
3. A Discussion Guide for Latter-Day Saints in Understanding the Bible and Homosexuality: http://affirmation.org/learning/bible_and_homosexuality.shtml
4. Homosexuality and Scripture from a Latter-Day Saint Perspective: found on the same website page as previous…
5. A Heterosexual Jewish Rebbe’s View on the (Supposedly) Homosexual Texts in the Hebrew Bible: found on the same website page as previous…

First of all, I am not gay. I’ve never had homosexual tendencies, thank heavens, and if I ever do (which I doubt will happen), I will use every ounce of energy I have to extinguish them, fighting them with all the force of my being.

Labeling Card’s article as “homophobic” is just bandying about negative terms in an attempt to win an argument that way. He was right: you can’t be an active Latter-day Saint in good standing and yet practice homosexuality. It’s a blatant violation of the law of chastity. If the tendencies are there but are unacted upon, that’s certainly not a sin — we all have tendencies toward one sin or another — but it’s when we give in to those temptations that it becomes sin.

You can believe whatever you want to, but the fact remains that God has condemned homosexuality as a serious sin. It’s wrong. It’s a sin against nature. It’s a perversion. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? And remind me again, why did they get destroyed? Yes, that’s right, homosexuality. (Thus the term “sodomy,” by the way.) And don’t forget that the first commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth. Now, I don’t know all the mechanics of being gay (and I don’t want to know, either), but I’m pretty darn sure that you can’t procreate if you’re gay. Physically impossible. You know, if everyone were gay, the world’s population would drop to zero as soon as the last couple died.

“Do not even refer to homosexuality as we understand it today”? You’re joking, right? Things haven’t changed as much as you think they have. But humor me: what do we understand homosexuality to be today? And if you could be so kind, please list the six or seven Bible scriptures that you mentioned, and explain just how they are mistranslations and misinterpretations. Evidence, please.

I do agree that homosexuals can be good people, or at least as good as someone who’s living in sin can be. (What I mean is, in other areas of their lives I’m sure there are many — even a majority — who are nice, honest people. But as far as sexuality goes, they’re in the wrong.) But the practice is corrupt, immoral, and perverse. I’m not saying this because I’m afraid of homosexuality. Bah, humbug. I’m saying it because this is a great evil that has to be fought against, a dragon deadset on destroying the fabric of society. I don’t fear it, but I certainly will not embrace it, either.

Again, I do not in any way support the persecution of homosexuals. That’s wrong, and it should be stopped. But I absolutely do not support homosexuality in any form, and I will do whatever I can to fight its advocacy as something normal. It does not belong in the mainstream.

One last thing. One of those pages (all of which seem to be poorly put together, by the way) had this quote:

Almost all Jewish halakhic authorities agree that nowhere in the specific texts of the Five Books of the Written Torah does the Torah prohibit homosexual acts by WOMEN (see the writing on this by Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Chief Rabbi of Baghdad, 1834-1909), in The Halachot of the Ben Ish Hai, Chapter “Shoftim,” on lesbianism). This fact proves that homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not the intent of the subject verses in the Book of Leviticus.

Huh? The reasoning here seems to be a bit weak. Watch out, it’s going to collapse. Yup, there it went. Oh dear. Well, looks like they’re going to have to come up with a better argument for why the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. And good luck! (They’ll need it.)

This is in response to Mr. Card, Mr. Crowder, and Mr. Bennington.

Someone cleverer than I am once said that today we live in the United States of Abdication. It’s a trend that has been going on for a while now, and it only seems to get worse. Almost fifteen years ago we saw an old lady sue McDonald’s for making their coffee too hot. It seemed ridiculous at the time, but she won. In comparison to the type of things we see today, it seems downright legitimate. Nowadays we see people suing McDonald’s for making them fat. Suing tobacco companies for addicting them to tobacco. Blaming schools for not training their children right, or worse, blaming music and video games for corrupting their children’s sensibilities of right and wrong.

We love to slough responsibility onto others. The devil made me do it. My dog ate my homework. It’s just how I am. I was born this way.

I don’t buy Mr. Bennington’s argument that Card’s essay is fundamentally faulty because it is based on misconceptions about the optional nature sexual orientation. Frankly, that fact is irrelevant to his case. Personally, I think people we are mature enough to stop believing that gays are out to recruit our young ones, or that someone becomes gay on a whim. I’ve seen research showing a biological difference in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. Brains were sliced into razor thin sheets and examined in great detail for differences. The place where the brains differed? Guess what, the homosexual’s brain in that area was more like a woman’s brain than a man’s.

But what of it?

Biological proclivities are common. You can be born with the tendency for all sorts of mental disorders. You might be predisposed to alcoholism or other addictions, or to pedophilia, or other abusive tendencies. You might be a sociopath. Or you might be a homosexual. But they’re all just that: disorders.

That you didn’t choose it doesn’t mean you should embrace it. It’s your cross, and you must bear it. You might be born with a particularly strong sex drive, and be tempted by (heterosexual or homosexual) pornography. Perhaps you have an awful temper which leads you to fly into rages where you cannot control yourself.

It’s all in the same book: Stuff you shouldn’t succumb to.

I believe Mr. Card’s point is that homosexuals are seeking to promote the lifestyle as acceptable, mainstream, another perfectly viable life choice. Gays may not be recruiting, but they’re trying to destroy the idea that the act is sinful and base, and this will lead those who have the tendency to revel in an aspect of the Natural Man that should be mastered, not indulged.

It’s not so much that you’re subject to change, it’s that you’re subject to your own self-control. Saying “I was born this way” is an abdication of personal responsibility. The argument, “If God made me this way, it must not be bad” is faulty. If you don’t believe the Bible, as a Latter-day Saint one has plenty of further teachings on the matter from modern prophets. We are created with weaknesses that we may overcome them. Our society doesn’t tolerate harmful predators, be they murders, rapists, or pedophiles. A homosexual is a predator to someone struggling not to act on a homosexual feelings. And all of the justification we can muster, even if it becomes the socially dominant viewpoint, will not make something wrong to be something right.

Well said, Rikker. I agree.

Incredibly ignorant. “And don’t forget that the first commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth.” Um, no. That isn’t the first commandment. And your ignorance flows on from there. And this other boob. Homosexuality is not like alcoholism or pedophilia. It is in no way more harmful than heterosexuality. Do you even know any homosexuals? Close friends or family? Both of your posts are textbook homophobia.

Well, well, well. I honestly don’t know how to respond to this brilliantly eloquent comment, which so lucidly makes a case for itself that I’m left with no ground to stand on.

Rats, I was going to try to be nice. ~sigh~ First off, let’s look at Genesis 1:

Verse 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Verse 28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So the first thing that God said to Adam and Eve after he created them was, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Yup, that sounds like the first commandment to me.

Next, homosexuality is in no way more harmful than heterosexuality? Let’s see, it only happens to destroy families. Yeah, that’s not harmful at all. Right. And it leads to promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases. Oh, those don’t hurt. Yup. Homosexuality is a perversion of nature, just like pedophilia and all the rest. It’s not the way God intended things to be. Period. Twisting nature and truth to fit your worldview is wrong and intellectually dishonest.

If you’re really trying to win us over to your viewpoint, by the way, you ought to have a solid position and evidence, not just emotional whining without form or substance. And no more ad hominem name calling, too.

Seth:

I, as of the SoulForce visit, now know someone who identifies himself as “gay.” I don’t hate him. I don’t think he’s an evil person. I just think he is wrong about this, just as I am sure I am wrong when I make incorrect choices. All of the pro-GLBT “rights” people have yet to make any answer as to the lack of scientific evidence that homosexuals are “born that way.” Like Ben says, when you actually counter our arguments, we will have a discussion. If you have an actual argument, come over to my blog and make it. I’d like to hear it, since I have yet to hear any valid arguments or rebuttals to our arguments.

Has any body here actually opened a bible? The Ten comandments have nothing to do with the creation of Adam and Eve. Remember this guy named Moses? The first commandment is somthing like worship no other God’s before me. Ring any bells?

Yes, Conor, you are right if we’re speaking of the 10 Commandments. But I think what we’re refering to is God’s first commandment in general–to multiply and replenish the earth.

I would like to state for the record that I am not “conor” on this thread. :)

I’m glad that General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had the guts to share his opinion that “homosexual acts are immoral.” Reportedly, he was asked for his personal opinion and he gave it. I don’t know how much trouble he is in now, but at least Truth is on his side.

conor: Liz is right, we’re talking about the chronologically first commandment. :)

Connor: I figured you’d want to do that. ;)

Shirley: Interesting, I hadn’t heard about that. (But I haven’t been very good at keeping up with the news lately.) It makes me happy to hear that there are still public figures who aren’t afraid to stand up for what’s right. I’m sick of all this political correctness which basically silences people unless they share the prevailing opinion of the day. Bah. Anyway, three cheers for Pace, no matter how much trouble he gets into because of it.

[…]      While perusing an associate’s writings, I came across this article of his on homosexuality and the subsequent discussion on it.  It’s an issue I’ve wrestled with in my mind a great deal, especially when I found out one of my step-brothers was gay.  To me, he was a shining example of what a faithful Latter-Day Saint should be.  He knew of the doctrine and of current events and enjoyed discussing them (not debating them, which I still find amazing).  He was kind, funny, and almost always pleasant mannered.  The only time I heard him raise his voice or yell was at me once and I thoroughly deserved it.  […]

[…] April 2006: Orson Scott Card’s essay on homosexuality, and a link to my Beyond project (genealogy software), which has been hibernating for a while now but once I graduate I’ll have time to resurrect it. […]