Once, on The View, Joy Behar criticized televangelist Joel Osteen for his belief that homosexuality is a sin. (I wrote about another time Ol' Joel met a talk show host out for blood here.) Everytime soft-spoken, easy-going Joel didn't finish his sentence fast enough for Joy, she would rapid-fire a series of accusations-disguised-as-questions.
You can see the video on YouTube, but if you've ever listened to an entertainment host "interview" someone with a different point of view, you can picture it. Even conservative hosts, with whom I usually agree philosophically (Beck, Rush, Hannity) tend to badger guests with opposing ideas instead of letting them speak. This frustrates me, since I believe those particular hosts are honest students of the truth and have no reason to silence guests. But it's an epidemic in the media to invite people to talk and then allow the main personality to hijack the majority of the conversation.
I think I understand why. Oh, we all know they're concerned primarily with ratings--and conflict sells. But I think there's another problem. All shows, whether on radio, television, or live, have a limited amount of time to make their cases and discover "truth"--despite the fact that truth may require extra digging and can't be rushed. As I wrote to a friend in a recent comment, "Truth isn't sound-bite friendly." I just meant the soul-searching and proof-offering aspect of it doesn't fit nicely between commercial breaks.
So, Joy says to Joel something like, "Where do you get the right to call homosexuality a sin?"
Joel: Uh, hm. Well, you know, (*Award winning smile*) I'm glad to--
Joy: You're hurting people with your claims, you know?!
Joel: Well, uh, hm, I don't mean to hurt anybody, but--
Joy: You know it's not a choice, don't you, Joel? Homosexuality is not a choice!
And this is where I arrive at my point on today's blog. The word in the medical community is that There is no gay gene. Read the article! It's extremely well-written and documented like a term paper. You even can pull up some of the author's sources with a simple Google Search and read what THOSE people are saying, too. Research for my research-loving readers, and not the kind you're likely to see reported on MSNBC or CNN.
But, beware. It's a lot of reading. If you desire a logical-sounding, passionately delivered one liner, which makes good TV but has no real-world support, flip to The View on weekday mornings. However, if you want the truth, you're better off scouring articles with too many words for Joy Behar.
I'm glad that you note that liberal and conservative commentators on the most popular channels do the same things (cut off guests, don't do very in-depth reporting, etc). I agree with you on why too.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if there is a "gay gene." I have a feeling it is much more complicated than just a single gene (just like alcoholism, depression, etc). I feel like the more the learn, the more we figure out how little we know. Plus, I doubt that you or I understand the neurobiology and genetics to be able to tell if this or any other article is BS.
To be honest, I don't think it matters.
Someone's sexuality and who they love is their decision. I can't possibly know what's going on in the mind and body of another person. I know that two people who love each other are not hurting me, and I see no evidence of them hurting other people. (Just like you and your husband, even though you have very different beliefs than me.) I think that two people who love each other and consider each other life partners should receive the same respect as other life partners from our government (separation of church and state). I don't see what makes a gay couple any different than a straight one. There are plenty of kids in the world that need adopting (there always have been and probably always will be). And if a couple doesn't want to have kids, then that's fine by me too (in fact, if someone doesn't want to have kids, I'm thrilled when they don't!).
I believe the point of this particular post is a refutation of Behar's statement "It's not a choice". It would seem that we're all in agreement that it IS a choice. The notion that love is something over which we have NO control leads to ludicrous conclusions.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that "loving" a person of the same sex is not the same as "having intercourse" with a person of the same sex. Deep, meaningful, loving relationships among members of the same sex are natural and healthy. Intercourse is not an essential part of loving relationships.
Regardless of the consensus reached on "The View", sex is always a choice.
Yes, after re-reading my post, I realize I never came full-circle with that point, John.
ReplyDeleteHomosexual sex is a choice just like heterosexual sex--and neither of those is synonymous with "love." People like Joy Behar, who compare gays to African Americans in the Civil Rights era, are assuming a genetic explanation for homosexual desire--"they were just born that way!" the same way blacks are born with dark skin. But I challenge that idea with the above article AND with the idea that LOOKING black and ACTING gay are not the same thing.
Switching gears. Anonymous, what sources do you trust? No hidden agenda here--I'm asking out of interest. Through our various conversations, you've admitted being suspicious of the news media, the Bible, and the article in this post, among other things. It's a good idea to question your sources, so I'm not faulting you. But, I wonder if there is anything you know to be true FOR SURE? And who/what do you trust as an authority?
I don't understand what's wrong with having sex. It's an expression of affection, it feels good (hopefully!), etc. It makes you feel closer to another person. Everyone makes the decision to have sex. I respect it if people don't want to have sex before marriage. But I don't think there's anything generally wrong with it - meaning it doesn't hurt anyone unless done unsafely. So I don't understand why we would differentiate between loving someone and having sex with them in terms of homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteAre you all suggesting that gay couples should become life partners, raise children, but never have sex?!?! This is hilarious to me if true. Maybe I am misunderstanding though.
I agree looking black and being gay are two different things. But I also think both groups are discriminated against in different ways.
Onto the whole truth issue: There are two different levels of truth to me.
ReplyDeleteOn the philosophical level: No, I don't know anything FOR SURE. I could be imagining things or exist in the imagination of someone else. That sort of existential puzzle.
But on a more practical level, if I assume that I see what I see, hear what I hear, etc, then I still don't trust all that much. One major reason is history. People have always found ways to justify their behavior. Scientific "findings" are proved to be false all the time, it turns out segregation and slavery are bad things, women are now allowed to vote, etc. I've taken statistics and economics and know how easily numbers can be distorted. I've conducted interviews and know how hard it is to truly communicate with another human being.
Example: I was asking farmworkers if they felt sick after working. The point was to see if pesticides were being used. I was talking to a woman in an area known for pesticide abuse. Babies born disfigured, etc. I asked her if she felt sick after working, rephrasing a few times in case my Spanish was just out-of-whack, and repeatedly she said no. Then I started asking her if she had specific symptoms (nausea, headaches, etc) and she said yes to ALL of them. I realized that her definition of "sick" was completely different than mine, because these symptoms were just daily reality. (This is a true story by the way, and another reason I support government regulation.)
I could go on forever about what's real and truth and knowledge. I tend to trust groups that I know work directly with the people they are commenting on. I also trust sources if they are consistent with what I hear from people I work with. I'm more likely to trust sources that a peer-edited, so if something isn't published in a reputable academic journal I am a little suspicious. This is mostly because I do not understand complicated scientific methods, and I think it makes sense to pay attention to large groups of professionals. There are CERTAINLY limitations though, and I take everything with a grain of salt.
One more thing: I'm not saying being gay is a choice. I have no idea if it is or not. I'm saying it doesn't matter. I agree that we choose our actions, but if you are oriented to be attracted to someone of the same gender/sex, then the word "choice" becomes confused. What we feel is not a choice.
ReplyDeleteA black man does not choose to be black. A gay man does not choose to be attracted to another sex/gender.
I don't KNOW if people have a "gay gene" because a) I'm not them so I don't know what they feel and b) I don't know science THAT well. I kind of doubt people would commit suicide, become alienated from their families, face discrimination, etc. EN MASS if they could just be straight. Most gay people I know say they don't feel they have a choice, that it's who they are. I tend to respect their perspective since I don't live their lives.
Regardless, my point is that whether or not its nurture, nature, both, or neither, being gay is not an inherently bad thing.
So, is it safe to say you determine what is right and wrong based on whether you perceive that it hurts someone? You said you don't see anything wrong with premarital sex--that it doesn't hurt anyone. And, since homosexuals don't hurt anyone, being gay is not inherently bad. So, from that, I glean that your highest authority is a personal judgment about whether anyone suffers as a result of some choice? Don't let me put words in your mouth if that's not what you meant. I'm just trying to understand...
ReplyDeleteI think it's worth mentioning that--politically speaking--I agree with your belief that consenting adults have the right to decide with whom to have sex. Ultimately, it's none of my business, and I can't/shouldn't get involved. But, also politically speaking, when somebody wants to redefine an ancient, religiously-oriented ceremony, I think the debate hinges on this idea that sex always is a choice--not a civil rights issue. Homosexuals are given the freedom to sleep with whomever they choose, AND they can marry just like everybody else--someone of the opposite gender. So, when somebody like Joy Behar (and many many others) confuse the desire for homosexual sex with something uncontrollable, like being black, I disagree politically. What about people who desire sex with dead bodies? Or those who desire sex with animals? Or who want to marry more than one person? Or who want to marry their own brothers and sisters? If marriage is just a ceremony between people/things that love/desire eachother, it could get downright....gross very quickly. Again, all politically speaking.
But, my answer to your question--morally--about homosexual practices ("are you saying they should raise kids and never have sex?") comes from my Authority. Since I believe God set the world in a certain order, and that He tells us certain sexual practices were not part of the original plan, I believe both premarital sex and homosexuality DO harm a person in deep, spiritual senses. Certain actions--including lying, gossiping/slander, binge eating/drinking, and some sex acts--violate the rules of right and wrong which were established by the God who established this thing called "life" in the first place. It's impossible to go against a natural law without causing harm...
You said, "You can't choose how you feel," and I agree with that statement completely. That's the whole reason I started this blog--to try and manage some very intense feelings I have at times, whether they be anger, depression, anxiety, or other negative emotions resulting from "the things that want to kill me" in my life. :) But, I strongly believe feelings can mislead and are not a valid indicator of what a person "should" do. Just like my preschoolers should NOT hit eachother, no matter how much they feel like it, I can't choose whether to lie, gossip, have sex with a goat, or consume everything in my kitchen based on whether I want to.
If there is such thing as "right" and "wrong"--as established by a Creator--(and all of us behave as though this is the case)--then how do we determine what that is?
I think I'm going to start a new thread along these lines...
I really like that you differentiate the political from your personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI should have qualified that consent must be involved and it not hurt anyone. The difference between gay marriage and other potential types:
1. Sex with animals - no consent from animal
2. Sex with brothers/sisters - there is harm caused, to the child who is incredibly likely to have genetic problems
3. Polygamy - This one is tough. I think it should be legal though because I don't think it inherently hurts anyone, even if some polygamous groups have tendencies toward abuse. It is certainly inherently illogical (not enough women, too many men -> imbalance) but I don't think being illogical should be against the law.
Part of me thinks that marriages shouldn't be government sanctioned at all.
Now I will move to your new post to discuss the larger topic of moral authority :)