|
This critique |
HETEROSEXISM, HOMOSEXUAL HEALTH, AND THE CHURCH II. ELCA RESTRICTIVE THEOLOGY OF HOMOSEXUALITY Part I of this critique focused on the way the restricting side in the church divide over homosexuality has formulated a non-biblical or scientific framework to stand in opposition to the affirming medical stance on homosexuality. This methodology frequently misrepresented scientific documents to fit a particular biblical interpretation. The following section critiques this biblical interpretation, focusing primarily on what the psychiatric literature has occasionally referred to as “subjective” interpretation of biblical texts. This means imputing more into the texts than they actually contain, especially when the non-biblical words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are used to enhance bias. The focus for the following section is Professor Gagnon’s book because it has the most comprehensive analysis of the relevant biblical texts in the group contributing to the book Christian Sexuality, and Dr. Harrisville essentially followed or was in agreement in his Wordalone presentation. In addition, Pastor Saltzman selected Gagnon for his conference and his book of essays, the other theologians seemed to borrow concepts and language from Gagnon's book, and other writers in the Lutheran Forum have endorsed his work. A. Genesis 1-3: the creation accounts [37] Professor Gagnon's theology of homosexuality begins in Genesis with an idealized formulation of sexual complementarity (making "perfect" or "complete") based on anatomic "fitting" of sexual organs. This anatomical evidence is the primary basis to substantiate and legitimate God's clear intention for every human person. The scientific problem with this construct on the basis of Genesis 1-3 is not the complementarity concept per se but its perfection that begins with the "perfect fit" of the male and female sex organs. Even though Genesis 1-2 says nothing about differences in same-sex and opposite-sex desires, Professor Gagnon brings these distinctions into his interpretation by finding anatomical "legitimization" for heterosexuality but not for homosexuality. Professor Gagnon is seemingly replacing the different desire (orientation) paradigm with an anatomical paradigm. This appears to be a dubious formulation, however, because besides not saying anything about variants in sexual desire, the Bible also says nothing about multiple sexual anatomical variants (e.g. gender ambiguity - hermaphroditism, etc.). Gagnon doesn't say anything about how biblical "legitimization" would apply to anatomic variations not mentioned in the Bible, although he mentions them in other contexts. [38] The apparent reason is that if he acknowledged pre-natally determined sexual anatomic variations, he might have to acknowledge that variations in other factors that formulate sexual desire might also be determined before birth. This is exactly what he does not want to do. But a more heterosexist dimension of Professor Gagnon's "perfect" heterosexual complementarity concept is that he omits incorporating the temptation and Fall in his interpretation of the Creation texts. This both helps idealize his "perfect" complementarity heterosexuality concept and also sets the stage for later constructing a parallel discomplementarity view of homosexuality by inserting multiple references to the Fall in his interpretation of the Romans 1 references to same-sex relationships. [39] A reasonable interpretation of the importance of the Fall is that it not only introduced the potential for sexual and non-sexual abuse within sexual relationships even when anatomically complementary but also the potential for good committed relationships even when anatomically not complementary. This reality could be the prophetic judgment of our time, just as new judgments about cosmology, slavery, women's rights, segregation and women's ordination developed in the past. In her book "The Fall to Violence" (Continuum: New York, 2003), the prominent relational theologian Marjorie H. Suchocki argues that the traditional concept of the Fall (or original sin) as primarily rebellion against God is inadequate and too often easily distorted such that it trivializes the enormity of relational sin. In the traditional theology of original sin, the primary sin is between God and the individual person; this sin was present before our consent but is absolved by faith in Christ. According to Suchocki, in this doctrine sinful acts against other persons and creation are too easily side-stepped. She argues that the core of original sin is the natural human inclination of unnecessary violence against other persons and creation that diminishes the well-being of all. To hold her own and other's theology of sin to account, she begins each chapter with a report of violence from secular news sources. One example is:
Irrespective of one's theological construct of sin, it would seem appropriate for heterosexuals who choose to critique homosexuals to at the same time put heterosexuality in some sort of comparative perspective. In terms of both raw numbers and severity of violence, that of heterosexuals certainly ranks well over twenty times that of the homosexual segment of society. For restrictive theologians to provide no such context for their judgments about homosexuality suggests an attempt to use homosexuality as a means of camouflaging the violent and non-violent sexual failures of heterosexuals. A hermeneutic that neglects the Fall in Genesis 1-3 where it is a major part of the story but inserts it into Romans 1 where the text does not mention it is also consistent with efforts to simultaneously demean homosexuality and idealize heterosexuality. B. Genesis 19 and Judges 19: Sodom and Gibeah [40] In the Sodom and Gibeah stories, Professor Gagnon repeatedly uses the term intended “homosexual rape” as the primary issue. He uses homosexual as an adjective describing the intended acts to infer their meaning as a noun to make clear his judgment that the men involved were homosexual. [41] He runs into difficulty with the Gibeah story where the gang of men actually ended up raping the concubine to death, which he calls “heterosexual rape” rather than opposite-sex rape: intended homosexual rape suddenly turns into heterosexual rape. If true, this overnight change in sexual orientation would certainly qualify as the most rapid “reparation” change ever recorded. This is what Gagnon’s words mean but not likely what he really means. Professor Gagnon assumes the men in the Sodom and Gibeah stories were homosexual men that intended to commit same-sex rape. But modern behavioral data would suggest rather that these men were most likely sadistic or otherwise emotionally charged heterosexual men (as happens with conquering armies, in prisons, in anti-homosexual violence, etc., and as represented in the movie “Deliverance”). Gagnon prefers to not discuss the alternative view that the men in these stories were most likely heterosexual, apparently to leave the traditional view that these were homosexual men unchallenged. It is not that Gagnon doesn’t likely know about the view that the men in these stories could be heterosexual men because it is found in at least one source he refers to about other texts. [42] It could be argued that the obscure Gibeah story is not only itself evidence of the Fall, but so is the attention given to it 3000 years later. If the story were only about the concubine who was raped to death and had her body later cut up in twelve pieces to be widely distributed in Israel to incite revenge, it would be scarcely noticed, even in church discussions on sexuality - it would be too primitive to be relevant. The attention given it is only because a gang of “worthless men” wanted to humiliate a male stranger in town but never did because they were given an available woman instead. Professor Gagnon then offers that the narrator was not interested in “psychologizing the motives of the perpetrators” but he adds his own view that “homosexual rape would require some degree of sexual stimulation.” Briefly summarized, what the biblical narrator considered irrelevant, Gagnon tried to make relevant. C. Leviticus: the prohibition texts [43] Professor Gagnon’s interpretation of Leviticus was characterized by repeated associations of the same-sex prohibitions with the words abomination, incest, bestiality, and although not in Leviticus, pedophilia. [44] These associations, especially with the word incest, were also repeated throughout the book. This very inappropriate association with acts nobody condones today can be seen as an attempt to exaggerate a negative image of homosexuals for comparison with the idealized heterosexual complementarity standard. Gagnon uses the word “abomination,” over 20 times in the Old Testament section, especially as meaning inherently, intrinsically or unprecedentedly evil, victimizing or exploitive--meanings which were repeated in relation to other texts in other chapters of the Bible even though the word abomination is not in the other texts. [45] Pastor Saltzman takes these meanings one step further in applying them to the nature of homosexuality per se (see following below). [46] There is another reason for the importance of equating homosexuality with incest on the basis of Leviticus. This is to support the proposition that if a gene were found which were proven to make some persons have both a severe lack of self-control and a strong inherent desire for incest (or serial rape, sexual sadism, pedophilia), this would not make incest acceptable. This proposition is certainly true. But medical behavioral science does not use the reverse logic of concluding that because homosexuality has about the same potential for constructive relationships as heterosexuality, these other behaviors are equally acceptable on the basis of Biblical equivalence (if one is an exception all must be). Science makes judgments of healthy vs. destructive on the basis of empirical evidence and not based on a few biblical texts (note the paraphilia disorders of intention distinction in the definitions section). Because we do not treat epilepsy the same way the biblical texts do (exorcism) or because we do not prohibit blood products because the Bible does, to avoid an appearance of obvious selective literalism when it comes to homosexuality, restrictive theologians such as some reviewed here trump behavior science with a non-scientific theological doctrine of "inherently evil." This "if inherent" (i.e., genetic) logic exposes a camouflaged theology that homosexuality per se is inherently evil. Thus celibacy does not make homosexual persons "inherently good" for the church - only "tolerable." D. Romans 1: the “exchange” of the “natural” [47] In any quick reading of Romans 1 the “clear sense of the text” is that Paul constructs a mythical pre-historical story to make a theological point about gentiles. A group of “men” and “their women” knew God but became idolatrous and “exchanged” their “natural” passions for “dishonorable” sexual passions and gave up proper conduct for many “unnatural” sexual and sinful non-sexual practices. In the modern scientific paradigm these persons seem, as those in the Sodom (’all the men”) and Gibeah stories, more like heterosexuals who were acting out against their “natural” sexual orientation than homosexual persons. Homosexual persons do not consciously “exchange” opposite-sex desires they “discover” for same-sex passions and relations although they also may “perform” at odds with intrinsic desire. Professor Gagnon even goes so far as to suggest Paul likely had Sodom and Gibeah in mind when he wrote Romans 1. In this he was assuming, of course, that his view that the persons in the Sodom and Gibeah stories were homosexuals is correct, which, as noted above, is a dubious assumption. This sweep from the Fall through Sodom and Leviticus to Romans 1 has a thinly veiled connection with the devil’s intention in the created order which Pastor Russell Saltzman unveils in the framework around which he constructed a four-page editorial in the Forum Letter:
The influence of Professor Gagnon in this editorial seems clear (e.g. “intrinsically” victimizing and exploitive per se). The stated purpose of the editorial was to examine the question of “whether there is a biblical hermeneutic and a doctrinal theology of creation that admits homosexuality” (italics added). Note that the question here is not about homosexual acts or homosexual practice, but homosexuality per se, meaning intrinsic desire irrespective of behavior or lack or sexual behavior (i.e., even if virginal or celibate). This should not be surprising because, despite the title of his book, at least fifteen times Professor Gagnon also cites the Bible’s presumed negative stance on homosexuality with phrases such as “anti-homosexuality texts,” “biblical mandate concerning homosexuality,” and “the sin of homosexuality.” [48] This methodology is the likely basis for many ELCA church members seeing homosexuals as an “abomination” (intrinsically evil), “demon possessed,” “not part of God’s intention,” and a unique manifestation of original sin. We have personally witnessed and heard of such judgments indicting homosexuals without regard to their “practice.” This doctrine and its various iterations by others certainly qualifies as a “hostile” stance against young, virginal homosexuals. It is difficult to dismiss this theological formulation as due to careless use of words rather than a conscious nuancing of words such as the use of “double definitions” (e. g., homosexual person or homosexual practice = homosexuality) to construct “a reasoned system of bias.” This judgment is supported by the fact that Professor Gagnon goes at great lengths to attempt to establish that Paul understood homosexuality (not just same-sex acts) pretty much as we do today even though the original texts of the Bible had no words (such as “homosexual” coined in 1879) that conveyed such meanings. [49] Furthermore, this Gagnon assertion requires a double conjecture that (a) Paul knew what other ancient writers said on the subject and (b) these non-biblical writers understood homosexuality as science and mental health specialties do in the 21st century. Our judgment is that this “Gagnon-Saltzman” concept stands for much more than is justified by the texts. This concept about homosexuality stigmatizes all homosexuals no matter what their conduct. E. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 7: adulterers & arsenokoitai-malakoi [50] In the thirty-four pages Professor Gagnon devotes to these texts, thirty pages are focused primarily on exegeting the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi, individually and conflated together (the words which Paul used to designate a form of same-sex acts). Much of this is to dissect and refute what other theologians have said, especially the interpretation that Paul was referring to pederastic temple prostitution. The extent of this effort alone suggests some weakness in Gagnon’s position of trying to make these words all inclusive for intimate same-sex relationships. 1. Paul’s silence on committed same-sex unions Paul's’ silence on this aspect supports the hypothesis that he assumed most who had engaged in arsenokoitai-malakoi had an inherent opposite-sex desire rather than an inherent same-sex desire. This assumption would mean that if these offenders were married, they could simply give up what they were doing (1 Cor 6:11) and those who were single could seek a wife like everyone else (without reparation therapy). This premise would mean that it would be as easy for the same-sex offenders to give up their acts as it would be for the opposite-sex offenders (adulterers), a conjecture which is consistent with the text and at least as credible as many of Professor Gagnon’s conjectures. Gagnon acknowledges that changing sexual orientation is far from easy or common and the outcome may be only partial enough to require a life of celibacy. [51] He derives this knowledge, however, from modern science and not from biblical texts. 2. Adulterers and arsenokoitoi-malakoi Professor Gagnon also did not relate these two different sexuality related but equivalent sins (in the 1 Cor. text) to current church policy. This includes making no comments about Pastor Saltzman’s conference presentation and essay on divorce and remarriage in the church (“Clergy and Divorce”). Both Pastor Saltzman’s essay and one by Professor Gagnon were later printed in Christian Sexuality (pp. 47-58, 106-155). Saltzman’s essay basically states church policy has evolved in the last 50 years to where we have “no fault” divorce and remarriage but “Marital discord among clergy is not an argument for gay blessings. To the contrary, it is an argument against them.” The necessary “distinction between some accommodation for divorced pastors and no accommodation for sexually active homosexual pastors” has something to do with the nature of repentance, which was not very clearly spelled out. It was clear, however, that opposite-sex misconduct is much more easily forgivable than any same-sex conduct. Stated another way, same- sex fidelity is a worse sin than opposite-sex promiscuity. To homosexuals noting this disparity, Saltzman’s explanations and Gagnon’s warnings of eternal damnation if they don’t behave at least like adulterous heterosexuals would seem more like an empty heterosexist threat than a statement of biblical conviction linked to genuine concern for homosexuals. Perhaps recognizing this subjective bias, Professor Gagnon later in his book justifies this stance by pointing out that divorce and remarriage are not as “repetitive” as homosexual acts, apparently making “no fault” divorce and remarriage less egregious than same-sex committed unions. [53] But in this assertion about remarriage he either assumes remarried persons don’t engage in much “repetitive” sexual intercourse or he seems to not apply the same principle to heterosexuals that he applies to homosexuals, namely that “It is the (immoral sexual) act that counts.” [54] The one way this stance can hold together with some consistency is by assuming any same-sex “act” in a good committed relationship is much worse than any opposite-sex “act” in a very bad relationship. The former is an “abomination. It is “intrinsically evil.” Another Gagnon dictum is that Jesus is always on the strict side on sexual matters. It would seem to follow from this that the more original Markan version of remarriage rather than the Matthew or Luke texts is the most relevant, which would indicate that opposite-sex intercourse with another woman while the first wife is still living is adultery, whether remarried or not. But heterosexuals are apparently off the hook because again opposite-sex infidelity is more forgivable than same-sex fidelity. F. Jesus, the Gospels, and Acts: the “silence” texts [55] One of the stark realities of the Gospels is, of course, that neither Jesus nor anyone else (elders, scribes, Pharisees, Saducees, Priests, tax collectors, centurions, etc.), said anything about same-sex desire or behavior. The same is true of Acts, which includes the notable fact that half the book is about Paul, including extended accounts of four of his sermons. Professor Gagnon’s response to this is that “Jesus’ opposition to same-sex intercourse is highly probable” and “there is no good evidence that Jesus would have permitted followers to . . . have sex with members of the same sex.” In Gagnon’s view, the obvious reason for Jesus’ silence is that he “did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct.” This “gospel” position statement about Jesus’ stance on same-sex relationships is, of course, speculative and therefore required pages of supportive circumstantial extrapolations to defend. In any case, Gagnon’s hermeneutic clearly reads more into the texts more than what can be explicitly found. 1. Jesus’ reference to Sodom Here again the heterosexual vs. homosexual distinctions of the Sodom story become relevant. As has been noted, the stories that provide a context of acts of sodomy on men by men (which the Levitical prohibitions do not) were always about intended non-consensual inhospitable acts to humiliate someone. If Jesus’ references are a clue, the anti-hospitality (relational) meaning of these stories were a cardinal meaning Sodom always brought to mind, or at least this is what Jesus thought was the proper emphasis. Today, of course, it is not the case that most erotic relationships of two homosexual men or women are acts to humiliate or acts of “exchanging” what is inherent for what is not; most “inhospitable” acts of sodomy are done by emotionally charged heterosexual men. Most erotic relationships of homosexual men and women are consensual, whether promiscuous or committed. Both what Jesus emphasized and Gagnon’s silence on Sodom in his sectio n on the gospels again support the view that the biblical writers assumed same-sex acts were deviations by persons whose exclusive “natural” sexual attraction was opposite-sex (“heterosexual”). The “unnatural” nature of the biblical acts of sodomy were not just anatomic, they were relational. The contemporary relevance of these texts should take into account the fact that some recent estimates are that significant percentage of homosexual men have never engaged in ano-rectal intercourse (in some surveys over 30%) and up to two-thirds of all erotic acts of consenting homosexual persons are not ano-rectal. [57] Some surveys (e.g., Redbook) report that a surprising percentage of heterosexual couples occasionally have ano-rectal sex and many of the women reported it as enjoyable. Gagnon’s way of dealing with such realities and the fact that many same-sex couples have relationships that are better than many heterosexual relationships is to apply his “intrinsically exploitive” Levitical interpretation to any and all same-sex relationships. [45] In the end, Gagnon’s biblical priority for sexual morality is more anatomic than relational. 2. Sexual “law” in the “gospel” G. The relevance of biblical texts on same-sex relationships A major hermeneutical issue recognized by Professor Gagnon is that it is not just what the texts say but also how relevant they are to present understanding and experience. Not everything the Bible says is considered equally relevant: just because biblical writers viewed epilepsy as caused by demon possession we do not advocate treatment with exorcism rather than anti-seizure medications or surgery. Someone has said that biblical history and church history is primarily that about conflicts, most of which had to do with interpretations. The importance Gagnon properly assigned to the question of the relevance of the biblical same-sex texts is evident in the fact that the entire last 150 pages of his book are titled, “The Hermeneutical Relevance of the Biblical Witness.” [60] 1. The Bible’s disinterest in homosexual orientation This opening premise, by declaring the Bible’s lack of interest in variations in inherent sexual desire, defines a critical difference between the biblical and scientific views of sexuality. This Gagnon hermeneutical premise, with which we agree, indicates that the biblical writers likely had no conception of the variations in sexual orientation which we see today. As we see it, this Gagnon premise would fit best with the assumption that the biblical writers may have erroneously assumed that everyone first discovered an opposite-sex desire but some persons decide at some later time to act against this “natural” desire as a rebellious act against God. Professor Gagnon’s own introductory premise seems to undermine many of his assertions that are intended to support the Bible’s relevance to same-sex relationships. 2. Implications of the Bible’s disinterest in variations in sexual desire Second, biblical relevance is a two-way street. If the Bible’s disinterest in inherent variations in sexual desire makes the scientific knowledge and experience of dealing with these variations irrelevant to practicing according to these texts in any faith community, it means these biblical texts could equally be considered irrelevant to practicing medicine according to evidence based science. If the health of homosexuals in a committed relationship is judged by medical standards to be much better than those living promiscuously, Professor Gagnon’s premise means that the biblical texts are irrelevant to general health practices and policy precisely because of this “disinterest.” Third, Professor Gagnon could have, consistent with his premise, simply interpreted the biblical texts using the terms “opposite-sex” and “same-sex” as adjectives in place of “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” respectively, and let it go at that. Such an approach would not have compromised exegetical or hermeneutical accuracy. But instead Gagnon used the word “homosexual” as an adjective about 200 times in the textual interpretation section of his book. [63] By literal definition the use of these non-biblical terms always carry a meaning of a specific inherent sexual desire which imputes meanings contrary to the Bible’s “disinterest.” The use of these words in interpretations can serve a purpose of exaggerating some self-defined negative aspects of homosexuality than would otherwise be possible or justified by the texts. This implicit inconsistency between premise and methodology in the book is confirmed by Gagnon’s own explicit judgments about the type of erotic desires which he reads into biblical texts after declaring the writers’ disinterest (many examples have been cited previously). In our judgment this hermeneutical method and its outcome are inconsistent. 3. The restrictive theological arguments for biblical relevance Professor Gagnon’s second method attempting to link the Bible’s relevance to modern science is to not only use that science which he finds convenient for his thesis (often misrepresenting the sources) but also attempting to undermine the credibility of that science which he finds inconvenient. One way of doing this is to outline the weakness of studies on biological factors which might cause homosexual orientation such as studies regarding twins, genes, brain differences, pregnancy hormones, etc. [64] This is done based on a premise that the medical stance is based on extrapolations from such studies whereas this premise is not true. Professor Gagnon omits confronting the most important reasons for the APA’s decision stop treating homosexuality as a mental disorder: (1) one hundred years of clinical experience in unsuccessful attempts to significantly change sexual orientatio n; (2) evidence that such attempts were significantly harmful to some homosexual persons; and (3) observations that most homosexual persons seen by medical specialists other than mental health professionals were functioning quite well despite a hostile society. The arguments by Gagnon and others about the lack of proof of an innate biological cause for homosexuality are analogous to the arguments about the lack of evidence of mechanisms linking smoking with disease that the tobacco companies used for years to argue against the empirical statistical links of smoking with disease. The search for mechanisms of cause in both instances followed rather than preceded judgments based on clinical experience of related outcomes. The distinction between a specific cause which is determined before birth or acquired after but similarly "discovered" and resistant to change makes little difference medically. One child born with a markedly underdeveloped limb and another requiring amputation at age two may be equally "different" from their peers. Besides, proof of a genetic cause would not likely change the minds of those committed to a restrictive stance anyway, arguing with a logic that if incest or pedophilia were genetic it would not justify the behavior. This dubious logic fails to make empiric distinctions between potentially healthy and destructive behaviors (such as paraphilias - see definitions). Following this restrictive logic, because the Bible states blood from other sources should not be introduced in the body, we should not use blood products to treat a severe genetic bleeding disorder in a patient who is hemorrhaging. b. Subverting science If the 1973 vote had been different, it would have likely passed within a few years but the opposition has not been able to summon enough scientific or any other meritorious reason to have another vote to again classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Instead, the minority group after the vote, many with links to fundamentalist theologies, have chosen to continually characterize the decision as unmerited, while avoiding mention of the fact that the AMA and every medical specialty has followed this decision by adopting non-discrimination policies toward gay and lesbian medical professionals and patients. It is ironic that a medical specialty which voted on ethical grounds to delete a diagnosis and give up related therapies which were not working has been vilified for doing so by a small minority of its members and a significant segment of the church. If any other medical diagnosis and/or related treatments were judged wrong or ineffective but the practice was continued anyway, any outside group could justifiably call this practice into question as unethical. This is not the case in the view of those supporting a restrictive theology when it comes to homosexuality. The change to an affirming stance by all the related medical specialties has clinically been associated with a decrease in promiscuity and health problems in that sector of gays and lesbians who have found respected positions in society. But the restrictive theological sector does not want the church to participate in this positive change. c. Credible criticism What do those who object to the 1973 APA decision think should happen to the “thousands upon thousands” of respected, caring, and competent physicians, nurses and technicians whose personal lives are as moral as most of their heterosexual peers who staff our nation’s hospitals if homosexuality were to again be diagnosed as a mental disorder? Should they all be disenfranchised until they go through some reparative “cure”? The medical professions have practiced what they have preached and are not disappointed with the results. The same can be said about many other vocations. The factual history is that the initiative to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder started from regional sections of the APA and moved up through several committees and the APA board before the vote of all members. The first revision (1973-74) retained "sexual orientation disturbance," a second revision retained "ego-dystonic dystrophy," and it was not until 1986 that the last vestiges of the word "homosexual" were removed from the diagnostic manual of mental disorders. It is wrong to misrepresent this process as simply a casual popular vote without prior intense study and discussion. Those who opposed the change had many opportunities to make their case but the evidence and the membership moved steadily toward defining homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual desire and expression. [See J. Krajeski, chapter 2, pages 17-31, in Homosexuality and Mental Health, Stein and Cabaj, editors.] Besides the diagnosis declassification action, an equally or more important part of the 1974 APA decision, ignored by those theologians supporting the restrictive tradition, was the 1974 non discrimination resolution: Whereas, homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, or general social or vocational capabilities, therefore be it resolved that that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) deplores all public and private discrimination against homosexuals in such areas as employment. housing, public accommodation, and licensing, and declares that no burden or proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon homosexuals greater than that imposed on other persons. Further the [APA] supports and urges the enactment of civil legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer homosexual citizens the same protection now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further the [APA] supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. An immediate impact of this resolution was that within the next decade, all major medical specialty organizations adopted similar resolutions and implemented policies against discrimination of gays and lesbian medical professionals and patients. This in turn has had a significant impact of many other vocations and wider society and as such the medical profession might be regarded as the most effective gay lobby organization. A more recent event stemming from this resolution was the 2003 US Supreme Court decision which implemented the last sentence of the resolution. Without providing a constructive alternative, objections to the APA decision seem to be a covert way of supporting a hypothesis that still regards homosexuality and homosexual promiscuity as inherently psychopathological without explicitly arguing for it. The attempted subversion of the APA decision combined with promotion of a psychopathological hypothesis of homosexuality is also a convenient way of not directly confronting the self-implicating evidence that societal denigration of homosexuality, theological or otherwise, is what encourages many homosexual persons to seek understanding wherever they can find it. This outcome would not be good public health policy.
Click to continue: |