What if it is a choice?

[revtj]

What if being gay is a choice? What if, after all is said & done, the premodern and pre-literate cultural norms of the Bible simply don't have anything relevant to say about a phenomena occurring in an over-privileged, wealthy culture where some people, due to an unusual mixture of nature (genetics) and nurture (environment), created an identity called 'homosexual'?

And what if this identity was based on activities that have gone on with men and women since time began, only the slow demise of patriarchy changed culture such that men could not own women or slaves, or do as they pleased with other men in private, but could in fact drive their speedboat across the bay to a mansion to bump and grind with a member of the same sex?

The only thing that would not change is the universal standards the Bible and most religions set forth as fundamental: you must love your neighbor as yourself. Don't exploit the widow, the orphan or the stranger. Honor the dignity and worth of every person. Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

Homosexual identity is a privilege for people who aren't starving, homeless, racked by war, dying in masses of disease, illiterate, and totally dependent on ambiguous external forces for survival.

This is why the African Bishops at the Lambeth of '97 council were disgusted with their western colleagues who were elevating gay rights to a place of urgency within the church. Neither the blessing of homosexuality nor the sacramentalizing of status quo anti-homosexual feelings are worth tearing the church apart, halting the essential mission of feeding the poor, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger, visiting the sick & imprisoned.

If someone found indisputable proof tomorrow that it is genetic or that it is a choice, it would not change this truth. Stop judging and start feeding Jesus' sheep.

Here I stand (in sensible but attractive ruby slippers) for I can do no other. God help me.

[Jamie McDaniel]

revtj, I usually find your posts either entertaining or enlightening. But I've got to admit something -- I've read the one above three times now and I'm still not sure what you were really trying to say.

[themattperry]

Homosexual identity is a privilege for people who aren't starving, homeless, racked by war, dying in masses of disease, illiterate, and totally dependent on ambiguous external forces for survival.

This is why the African Bishops at the Lambeth of '97 council were disgusted with their western colleagues who were elevating gay rights to a place of urgency within the church.

Revtj, your post made me giggle, cry and nod and shrug all at the same time. A couple of things come to mind ... first of all, though I am no expert, I am aware of plenty of pre-modern and ancient cultures which integrated same-sex love into society much better than we seem to. Examples: Tribal Indonesia (see the writings and the film about Tobias Schneebaum) and Pre-European America (early european explorers were shocked to find "Berdaches" among many of the tribes -- men who lived, dressed and married as women) Finally, here's a quote from Neil Miller's book, Out in the World: Gay and Lesbian Life From Buenos Aires to Bankok:

One study on homosexuality in Africa indicates that of 78 cultures, with little contact with Western values, 49 approved of or at least tolerated homosexuality. This may indicate that homophobia (NOT homosexuality) is a Western colonial import.”

The fact that the African Bishops at Lambeth reacted and continue to react the way they do says more about what it means to be an Anglican Bishop from a conservative country than it does about the relationship between caring for the sick and poor and the need for an end to glbt persecution. The major religions in Africa are Islam and Christianity ... both religions with Semetic, not African roots. Homophobia is an imported value there, or at least not a universal home-grown value. Also, many primitive cultures found it absolutely possible to integrate same-sex love into society even when times were tough. These were not decadent societies by any stretch, but rather tribal ones, directly connected to earth and nature. Indeed, in some cultures it was the same-sex attracted that were viewed as gateways to the divine (shamans/witches) WITHOUT WHOM THE VILLAGE/TRIBE WOULD DIE. This is certainly not the case with every ancient culture, but it was not a rare pattern, from what I have been able to learn.

Certainly, Revtj, Christ was concerned with the poor above all else. But the poverty Christ addresses is not only the primary concern of physical poverty, but also spiritual poverty. "Man cannot live on bread alone" comes to mind.

I don't think that glbt people need consider ourselves an obstacle to justice of any other kind. I too, Revtj, hope to stand with you in feeding the poor and caring for those in need. It's one of the biggest challenges of my life to have the courage to do this while living in the type of society we do here in America. However, homophobia is homophobia is homophobia, ancient or modern, wherever it exists. It is a form of spiritual poverty, and I wish to heal it as well.

[revtj]

matt & jamie,

it would probably help if i was more clear about what issue my post was meant to be in response to...i keep hearing christians on all sides of the gay issue(s) bring up the point of whether it is a choice or genetic. typically, i think fundamentalists want to say we chose to be gay, and gay advocates want to say it's genetic.

my point was that i don't see what difference it makes even if you could prove one or the other. i would like to see fundamentalists who think we "chose this lifestyle" love their neighbor (including their gay neighbor) and care for the poor. likewise, i would like to see gay advocates, including us gay people ourselves, cease to pretend that gay issues are the pre-eminent issue of 21st century christianity.

it is an important justice issue & obviously we will not be silent about it, but i am thinking of the earliest christians (Gal 2:1-10) when the hot issue of the day was circumcision and christians had staunch differing opinions on it-- after they discussed (argued fiercely no doubt) it, they were asked only "to remember the poor."

peace & apologies if i went to far in left field, hope this helps!

[Zerbie]

Most people will probably tell you their sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice; some people might tell you otherwise. As far as equal human rights are concerned it should not matter if sexual orientation is a choice or not. Agreed.

As far as justice work: we all have our unique callings. Some people are called to fight to protect the environment, some to protect the interests of animals. We are all called to it a little differently one from another. I have great admiration for those who fight to end war, to preserve our planet. My own calling is and always has been clear: I stand with the gay community and do what little I can from time to time to see an end to homophobia and all its repercussions. It's where a great piece of my heart lies. Fulfilling that calling in no way belittles the other immense troubles that people face.

[revtj]

Fulfilling that calling in no way belittles the other immense troubles that people face.

Agreed, we are given different gifts. Thanks be to God! Amen.

[ochast]

Originally Posted by themattperry

early european explorers were shocked to find "Berdaches" among many of the tribes -- men who lived, dressed and married as women

Taking a look at gender in North American native peoples is fascinating. Two-spirit people of all stripes had a lot of different names and roles in different tribes. Today we might use terms like trans (mtf and ftm both), gay, lesbian, cd, whatever. But there were established and named identity-spaces that even the modern LGBTQQIA lexicon doesn't cover. I remember being introduced to "the basic six-gender model" common among some Plains tribes.....and that really was the simple version.

It's unfortunate that so much of the early academic literature on two-spirit folks used "berdache," because it's the only one many people have heard. "Berdache" is a derogatory term introduced by Europeans that basically means "kept boy." Yes, it was originally intended as an insult. "Two-spirit" is a good umbrella term for Native LGBT folks....and the best would be to talk about a specific people's practices using their own terms. Lakota have winkte, for the Cheyenne, hemanah, and so on. Some tribes traditionally call on their two-spirit members as shamans, others as warriors, others as social bridge-builders and organizers, and other roles. There is so much cultural and gender diversity that got hidden when the Jesuits only described the cross-living men.

I'm getting off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening.
-Michael

[themattperry]

Originally Posted by ochast

I'm getting off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening.
-Michael

Thanks Michael --- I learned alot from your post!

[awediot]

A couple issues seem at play here. I fully agree that whatever formed the particular relationship of homosexuality and modern western culture, the focus on it, the political and fundamentalist effort toward such an innocuous reality is a luxury they can't afford and genuine waste of time. I presume we are easier to deal with, and create more pliable results that seem like progress, than the poor and hungry. They can infer all sorts of fluctuation within the community and consider them any way they want, while the truley needy just keep coming and remain so darned obvious and not helped.

I think it is important whether it is seen as a choice or not. A choice can be condemned. An act of nature, God, or your parents failings aren't really your fault. In one case you may be treated as sick. In the other, you can be thought of as evil. The help offered to either circumstance is very different.

My mother used to hope some day science would prove it was genetic, as that would go far in reducing predjudice and violence toward gays (her main concern for me). Then my sister pointed out it didn't do anything for blacks...and the struggle goes on.