HETEROSEXISM, HOMOSEXUAL HEALTH, AND THE CHURCH
Charles R. Peterson, M.D. and Douglas A. Hedlund, M.D.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

1. Prompted by past ELCA Churchwide Assembly resolutions authorizing a vote in 2005 to affirm gay and lesbian same-sex unions and ordain candidates in such relationships, a group advocating a negative vote led by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (ALPB) and Solid Rock Lutherans, Inc. has articulated a restrictive stance on homosexuality which may be briefly summarized as follows:

      Biologically, the restrictive stance regards homosexual persons as afflicted by an inherent psychopathology characterized by obsessive sexual self-centeredness which results in lack of self-control uniquely manifesting itself in same-sex child molestation, sexual promiscuity, and serious health problems.
      Theologically, homosexual persons are regarded as a sinful distortion of the “perfect” anatomical complementarity of opposite sexes evident in the creation accounts of the Bible. It follows that that homosexuality is not God’s intention and any intimate same-sex relationship, no matter how otherwise ideal, is intrinsically evil, exploitive per se, and an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order.

2. This restrictive theological stance is significantly derived from and repeatedly buttressed by serious misrepresentations of studies in scientific literature which would be regarded as unethical in any respected scientific context. Similar prejudicial methods were used in biblical interpretations such as imputing meanings about sexual orientation into biblical texts which were not present and linking the Fall in the creation stories more tightly with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.

3. This critique documents these practices which can be appropriately described as “a reasoned system of bias regarding sexual orientation which denotes prejudice in favor of heterosexual people and connotes prejudice against bisexual, and especially, homosexual people.” This is one of the definitions of heterosexism. [1]

4. We think that the theology and arguments which utilize these methods have a negative effect on the witness of the church, are unnecessarily divisive, are not representative of good Lutheranism, and obstruct rather than promote sound preventive health for lesbians and gays. Health issues are moral issues, especially in public preventive health where actions of one party adversely affect others. A unifying proposition with which both sides should agree is that sexual promiscuity is bad for physical, mental, and spiritual health of all persons no matter what the sex or gender mix.

5. In our view the best deterrent to sexual promiscuity for all persons who do not prefer a celibate life is a committed monogamous relationship with another sexually and otherwise compatible person. The contrary restrictive theological view is that the best deterrent to sexual promiscuity for all homosexual persons is limited to celibacy or an opposite-sex committed monogamous relationship after successful reparation therapy. Present evidence indicates that these latter options are realistic for only a small percentage of homosexual persons.

6. Those who vote against blessing or affirming committed monogamous unions for homosexual persons should at least recognize that a negative vote may have significant collateral negative effects on the health of homosexual persons which will likely become more evident in the years to come. Evidence supporting a stance favoring the affirmation of homosexual committed monogamous unions is presented in this critique.

      September, 2004

Click to continue
Part V: END NOTES