When Would Homosexuality Be Wrong?

Written by

The Salty Vicar has an extended essay responding to questions posed by Rev. Dr. Leander Harding. One particular passage in the essay caught my eye:

“[W]hat would convince you that homosexuality is morally wrong?” If homosexual
relationships, rather than secrecy and promiscuity, led to deep spiritual
self-destruction and provided no social benefit to the Christian community,
offering greater anxiety and hostility in the local church, then I’d reconsider.
If homosexuals, as a class of persons used these same relationships to
intentionally destroy the faith of other Christians, then I would reconsider
them as Christians.

* * *

… Liberals and conservatives can both see how many aspects of our culture are
deeply corrosive to the human person and to God’s expectation for us. I think,
however, conservatives should be examining the ubiquity of sexual greed, and are
being misled by focusing on homosexuality as the source of God’s consternation,
especially by focusing on those homosexuals who are deliberately rejecting a
clearly dangerous lifestyle for the love of the God, and by and large finding it
in the blessed arms of the Episcopal church.

(Emphasis added.)

Comments

30 responses to “When Would Homosexuality Be Wrong?”

2005-02-08

Wayne

DC,
I’d agree that Conservatives (or anyone) who focus on negative forms of homosexual conduct to the exclusion of negative sexual conduct in general are missing the boat. But I think that there is an issue that is being glossed over in the righteous rush to tolerance.
I think we can all agree that one of the immutable tenets of Christianity is that we should not harm each other. Causing harm to each other is contrary to our notion of love.
But the very behaviors that basically define male homosexuality are physically injurious to the participants. This has been documented in medical literature for many years and yet for some reason it is completely ignored by some today.
Living in a free society, if two people freely agree to engage in acts that have serious negative medical consequences to each other, then I probably wouldn’t be in favor of a law to prevent it. But can we honestly believe that such behavior is consistent with Christianity or Christian tradition?
I am prepared for the arguments that start off: “Well, not everyone practices X…” And I would answer: Of course not, but if we as Christians are commanded to be accepting and tolerant, shouldn’t we be able dilineate exactly what we are being accepting and tolerant of?
If a Christian says, “I accept Capitalism as a legitimate economic system.” Must he say as well, “And I think every capitalistic practice fits with Christian principles”?
Furthermore, if the most common capitalistic practices are squarely out of step with Christian principles, then in what sense could we accept Capitalism as a legitimate economic system?

Reply
2005-02-09

Erin

Hi – I found this site through Fr. Salty’s site, and feel compelled to respond to Wayne. Wayne, you state that “the very behaviors that basically define male homosexuality are physically injurious to the participants.” I can only assume you refer to a specific form of penetrative sex. I reply:
0) I prefer define homosexuality in terms of inclination rather than behavior; whom you fall in love with, rather than what you do with them.
1) My understanding is that all forms of penetrative intercourse cause damage to the participants, at one time or another. What is a ruptured, bleeding hymen, if not damage?
1.5) For that matter, childbirth causes quite a bit of damage to women – sometimes the damage is so great that the woman becomes incontinent. This is the logic behind episiotomies. Is the mother-infant bond now suspect? The mother-father bond?
2) By the argument-against-harm, it would seem that lesbian relationships, which are “more or less defined by” nonpenetrative sex, are superior to heterosexual relationships. Do you judge this to be the case?

Reply
2005-02-10

David Huff

Erin, Good points, well made. I often suspect when I see someone trying to “prove” that homosexuality is bad via this route that what we’re really hearing is an intellectualizing of their personal “ick” factor with it.
Well, duh! Being straight, I’ll freely admit that I’d have an “ick” reaction visualizing gay sex. But so what ? I’ve been assured time and again by gay acquaintances that they have the exact same reaction when pondering such things about the opposite sex.
The whole basis of that strikes me as a “style over substance” approach. i.e. “If I can cause the reader to have personal feelings of disgust, then I’ve proved my point.” Problem is, those sorts of arguments belong to a class of fallacy called Changing the Subject, and are therefor not valid.

Reply
2005-02-10

Wayne

David,
I must point out to you that have you’ve broken your own rule by changing the subject. Instead of talking about the original issue which is the health consequences of gay sexual activity, you’ve changed the subject to your “suspicions” that I am attempting to “prove” that homosexuality is bad by arousing disgust in the reader. Of course, this is not true and your assertion may have more to say about your psychological need to form snap judgments and demonize those who disagree with you than it does about the original post or about me. It’s always sad to see people project onto others and impute bad motive, but it’s especially disappointing to see this among people who call themselves Christian.
Erin,
Thank you for your responses. They were thought provoking. For the record, I am not trying to prove anything or cause anyone to feel bad. I’m simply trying to understand what we should make of a body of medical evidence that shows the long-term negative consequences of anal sex on the participants and how to reconcile this with thinking of these behaviors as loving, acceptable and Christian. The rates of medical conditions like anal cancer, chlamydia, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, isospora belli, microsporidai, herpatitis B&C, anal lesions, gay bowel syndrome (GBS) and permanent incontinence in gay males are very high and are either caused by or severely enabled by abrasions to or ruptures of the anal lining. So is there a constructive way to address this fact? Don’t we do the truth a disservice by sweeping this under the rug and simply ignoring it?
About your points:
1. I’m not aware of any long-term negative medical effects of the breaking of the hymen. Definitely not any on the order of the consequences of listed above. If you are aware of any, please do bring them up.
2. Complications in childbirth are well known but these represent departures from the normal. Child birth is a natural activity and the great majority of women who have children go on to lead perfectly healthy lives, but who, in their right mind, would get pregnant or attempt to get their partner pregnant if they _knew_ that serious medical consequences were likely. The difference here is that gay males, unless they are uninformed or willfully blind, should know that engaging in anal sex with their partner will likely cause long-term medical problems. This should be an item for open discussion in Christain circles when we talk about this difficult issue, but for some reason I hardly ever see it discussed openly.
3. Certainly lesbians do not have to worry about complications from pregnancy, so this would make their relationship less risky than heterosexual relationships in some ways. But on the other side, lesbians have higher incidence of STDs and some gynecological cancers than straight women so I don’t think there is a clear cut case here. A person’s relationship with their dog which consisted of rolling on the carpet and innumerable licks to the face would be even less risky, but I won’t be advocating this is as a replacement for marriage any time soon 😉
Going back to the original issue: The point is that as Christians, we shouldn’t do things that we can reasonably expect will cause our partners harm. If there are behaviors that we _know_ will most likely cause our partners harm, shouldn’t we consider these when speaking about the morality of our actions and lifestyles in a Christian context?
And finally, I understand not wanting to define sexual-orientation solely by the specifics of sexual practice. As humans, our relationships are much more complex than that, that is for sure. But there are different kinds of love. Most of us have great affection for both men and women in our life. But when it comes to romantic love or “falling in love”, this universally leads to physical desire and physical behaviors. My appeal is that we frankly discuss all of these behaviors in their full context.

Reply
2005-02-11

bls

How about citing some sources for the things you’ve claimed here, for a start?
Women who have sex only with women – i.e., lesbians – have the lowest rate of STDs of any group. This should be intuitively obvious, anyway. The cancer factor, I believe, is common to women who do not bear children; lesbians are almost certainly over-represented in this group.
I believe you’re quoting a biased source that cites health factors among “gay men” and among “women who have sex with women.” Notice the language; the latter does not rule out “women who also have sex with men.” This is important, and it’s done deliberately.

Reply
2005-02-11

Wayne

Bls,
Thank you for your comments. You are certainly right that women who engage in sexual behaviors only with other women (who also only engage in sexual behavior only with women, ad infinitum) would represent a low risk of STD. The problem for researchers is that the only real way for them to somewhat objectively identify “who is a lesbian” in their studies is by self-identification.
However, in one study by an Australian STD clinic, only 7% percent of the self-identified lesbians had never had sexual contact with a man. (Source: “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex With Women”, Sexually Transmitted Infections, Katherine Fethers, et. al.) The term “women who have sex with women” is used as far as I can tell, not for nefarious reasons but simply because of the difficulty of defining exactly who is a lesbian. If a woman engages in sexual activity with another woman even once, is she a lesbian. If she has sex with a man even once, does she cease to be a lesbian? It seems to me that reason for terminology is that the researchers do not want to make the “who is a lesbian” judgment so they simply use a descriptive term.
As I mentioned to David, I think it is a mistake to impute bad motive to people a priori. I know that topics like this arouse great emotion, but projection on to others isn’t helpful to the dialogue in my humble opinion.
About lesbians’ higher risk for certain types of cancers, you are again right that some of this appears to be due to hormonal factors dealing with childlessness, but there are other factors as well. Lesbians have higher rates of alcohol use, poor nutrition, and obesity. These factors may increase the risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, and other cancers. Lesbians are also less likely to visit a doctor or nurse for routine screenings, such as a Pap, which can prevent or detect cervical cancer. The viruses that cause most cervical cancer can be sexually transmitted between women. (Source for both – National Women’s Health Information Center – http://www.4woman.gov/faq/lesbian.htm)
Back to my original post: I was trying to begin a dialog about the effects of gay male sexual behavior and their relationship to Christian ethics. For many people, including me, this is an area of the debate for which I simply have not heard an explanation. Erin brought up some good peripheral points that I tried to respond to. These weren’t really the main topic, though I’d be glad to discuss other topics respectfully.
I think probably the worst part of the dialog these days is that it has become polarized to the point that there is little dialog. It’s like gay and straight have become Sunni and Shiite and the simplest questioning of dogma on either side has become the pretext for jihad.
Thanks again for your comments and insight.

Reply
2005-02-12

David Huff

Wayne, Drawing attention to the fallacious nature of the arguement you’re attempting to make is hardly breaking any rule. Your attempt to use a poor form of reasoning in making a point is a perfectly acceptible “meta-topic” for discussion. Logical fallacies are errors of reasoning, errors which must be recognized and corrected by prudent thinkers if a discussion is to have any value.
Don’t fall into the trap that “being disagreed with” = “being attacked (or demonized, or whatever)”

Reply
2005-02-12

bls

Wayne, I simply asked you to provide some sources for the things you’ve said on this thread. You’ve thrown a lot of unsupported “scientific” statements around, as if we should all accept them on faith. We don’t. Since at least some of these “statitics” apparently come from STD clinics, what would you expect to find? Glowing health? (This is what people did years ago to “prove” that gay people were mentally ill: they drew from the population who sought mental health care!) How does this relate in any way to the general population – much less the Church population? And BTW, you still haven’t provided sources for most of your statements. How about it?
And as you can see, your source does, in fact, use the formula “women who have sex with women.” As I said, this is done deliberately; “women who have sex with women” includes, for example, prostitutes and drug addicts. It does not mention “lesbians,” as you did. Let’s at least be consistent. And BTW, since “only 7% percent of the self-identified lesbians had never had sexual contact with a man,” well, then: Q.E.D. Why do you pick out “lesbianism” as the source of the problem, then? And then how does this involve “things that we can reasonably expect will cause our partners harm”? This is, yes, quite insulting to people who’ve been together and faithful for decades; their partnerships are marriages, whatever the world says.
Further, even if the STD rate were higher in lesbians, what would that actually mean? Suppose straight women had a rate of, say 3% and lesbians 4%. Should this now disqualify all lesbians from membership in the Christian Church? What about the other 96%? I mean, really.
And since the “The point is that as Christians, we shouldn’t do things that we can reasonably expect will cause our partners harm,” shouldn’t we extend that to Christians who do things that cause gay people harm? Are they then disqualified as Christians because of this behavior? I’m delighted that you’re worried about gay people, so let’s extend the umbrella of protection a bit.

Reply
2005-02-12

bls

I wish to emphasize, again, this part of the original post:
I think, however, conservatives should be examining the ubiquity of sexual greed, and are being misled by focusing on homosexuality as the source of God’s consternation, especially by focusing on those homosexuals who are deliberately rejecting a clearly dangerous lifestyle for the love of the God, and by and large finding it in the blessed arms of the Episcopal church.
IOW, it’s something of an absurdity to be looking for data on gay Christians in the STD clinics of Australia, rather than in the pews of the Church. But this is nothing new; gay people are ourselves never, ever consulted on this topic. We are debated over, discussed, dissected, and analyzed.
Never simply asked. It’s as if we don’t exist.

Reply
2005-02-12

bls

I do thank you, though, Wayne, for providing some links to sources. Particularly the one from the Health and Human Services, which I encourage everyone to read.
It seems fairly clear to me that many of the problems that lesbians have, health-wise, result from societal condemnation of homosexuality. Note especially this sentence: “Overall, recent data suggest that substance use among lesbians — particularly alcohol use — has declined over the past two decades.” This coincides, almost exactly, with the lessening of societal stigma.
I do always wonder, too, why people think that forcing people to adopt a heterosexual (or celibate) “lifestyle” is going to ameliorate any of these problems. To me it seems certain only to make them worse by creating more deep unhappiness.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that some homosexuality – certainly not all, by simple observation – really is based in mental illness, as I’ve heard some people suggest. Suppose this is one way the psyche deals with mental problems; an evolutionary development that allows people to have human intimate relationship without having to deal with procreation. Isn’t that a good thing? Why would anyone want to take comfort away from such people, and/or force them to behave in a way they are clearly not naturally suited to?
Why does the Church, IOW, want to force people to act in such hugely un-natural ways?

Reply
2005-02-12

Erin

Wayne, I cannot believe you just compared lesbian relationships to rolling around with a dog on the carpet. I admire you for trying to have a dialogue, because I agree that it’s necessary, but I think some of the things you say in jest speak volumes to some assumptions you may not realize you’re making.
My own thoughts on risk: People’s judgments of “risk of serious harm” are not transparently related to numerical estimates of risk. They are colored by value judgments, such as the perceived “normalcy” of the behavior. For instance, if you wish to get from Chicago to Saint Louis and are deciding between driving and flying in a commercial plane, your numerical risk of death is far lower in the aircraft, but most people will feel safer driving, in part I suspect because driving is just something you do, you know? Everybody does it, it’s part of life, and those 40,000 people who died last year in automobile accidents? Oh well; it happens.
Many, many people ignore the risks of heterosexual sex, as you seem to be doing, because it’s “natural” and “normal.” Do not make the mistake of conflating “natural” with “safe.” There are an awful lot of unintended pregnancies in this country (a better parallel to your GBS example, as I suspect very few gay men give their partners bowel trouble on purpose). If pregnancy is not a serious medical consequence in your estimate, with the vomiting and the insomnia and the abdominal distention and the psychological disturbances and the headaches and the backaches and the sometimes dying because the stupid little thing decided to implant in your fallopian tube, or on a scar from a Caesarian, then I challenge your concept of serious medical consequences. In addition, pregnancy is a serious legal consequence, a serious emotional consequence, and a serious financial consequence. And yet for hundreds of years no one gave a hoot about this – it was one’s wifely duty to submit, irrespective of potential harm (which happened a lot more before sterile hospitals, you know). Where’s the Christian love in that?
This isn’t about risk in the numerical sense, any more than private condemnation of people with herpes is about risk. If it were about risk, we’d abolish the handshake (what a filthy, disease-transmitting practice) and we’d be up in arms about E. coli instead of mad cow disease. It’s about fear, it’s about normalcy, it’s about trying to explain away discomfort by coating it with a thin varnish of reason. Risk is just part of that varnish.

Reply
2005-02-12

Erin

And on a more lighthearted note, for those who are seriously concerned about the plight of gay men’s bottoms, I have some advice: Start volunteering at your local reproductive clinic and help pass out free lube. 😉

Reply
2005-02-14

Wayne

Thanks all for the myriad of responses and insight. There is a lot there, but I’ll try to just hit the high points.
First of all, my sincerest apologies to anyone who was offended at my (obviously poorly thought out) attempt at humor about rolling around on the carpet with our dogs. The discussion point was about classifying relationships as better or worse by reference to how much risk was involved and for some reason, I remembered Kurt Vonnegut writing how he preferred rolling around on the carpet with his to dog to what most humans call “love.” So the point was that “less risky” doesn’t necessarily mean “better”, but I wasn’t trying to compare lesbian relationships to relating with our dogs. Again, my apologies for not being sensitive to how this might be taken.
About the soundness or fallaciousness of some of the points presented. I hope we can all agree with the following chain of logic:
(1) Christ calls us to love one another
(2) Knowingly causing physical harm to someone else is contrary to the notion of love.
(3) Therefore, if we want to obey Christ’s call, we shouldn’t physically harm one another.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t think that this is any way is restricted to the particular issue under discussion, nor should it be restricted to physical harm but to psychological harm as well. I am personally appalled and deeply saddened by the level of ungraciousness that I see in the church toward homosexuals and homosexuality. I am convinced of God’s love for each and every person. If I have contributed to anyone’s emotional angst by the starkness or form of my posts, I truly regret it.
Erin,
I am at work now so I don’t have my references with me, but I will post a source for the other contentions when I return home. Can we get honest? If I post them and they are from reputable instutitions, will they really be convincing to you? You appealed to common sense earlier when you mentioned that it was obvious that lesbians in an exclusive relationship have a low incidence of STDs. You are right. This is total common sense. I appeal to common sense as well now. Do we really need a study to tell us that the behavior under discussion is harmful? Can’t common sense guide us here too?
Here is what I am finding: When I question traditionalists on their orthodoxies like the inerrancy of scripture and the obvious problems with their trying to apply Levitical law or the writings of Paul to the modern day, they take offense. I try to be kind, but I cannot regret that I have caused them angst by raising obvious problems with their “scripturally-based” prescriptions. In many traditional circles, there is a great desire that everone would just “drink the damn koolaid” and shut up about certain things.
In the same way, when I challenge progressive orthodoxy, such as the full acceptance and tolerance of what a person is _and_ what they practice, I find myself in the same situation. I’m convinced that God loves all of us for who we are, but that he or she does not love everything that we do. I have found that many progressives have their own version of “doctrinal koolaid.” In this case, the koolaid seems to consist of a resistance to examining the ethics of certain sexual behaviors. We can talk about the problems with adultery or polygamy or the sexualization of children, but it just seems that there are lines like the one under discussion now that must not be crossed.
If someone came to America and to my church from a society that practiced female circumcision, I would feel the same way. I would love them and accept them as people and tell them about my personal faith that God loves each and every one of us. But I would be remiss and irresponsible if I did not talk to them about this practice and share the reasons why I believe it is contrary to Christ’s love. I would quite possibly offend them; but it’s a risk I would feel compelled to take. Thoughts?

Reply
2005-02-14

Wayne

David,
Have you noticed that Erin and bls both disagree with me on many of my points and yet I have not said anything to them about attacking or demonizing? Is it because I just decided on a whim to pick on you?
No, it’s because your post clearly implies that I am making a dishonest argument by trying to disgust readers in order to get them over to my side.
This is a reprehensible ad-hominem attack to make against someone whom you know little about.
In contrast, you’ll notice that Erin and bls are talking about the substance of my points and not imputing some hidden motive or deceit to me. See the difference?
At the expense of being accused of the “either-or” fallacy, you can either be a man and apologize for unfairly impugning my character or you can bring up another “Well, but…” sophistic argument.

Reply
2005-02-14

bls

I appeal to common sense as well now. Do we really need a study to tell us that the behavior under discussion is harmful? Can’t common sense guide us here too?
Wayne, my point is this: people often pick up “statistics” from anti-gay websites to use as weapons against us. These “stats” are back-loaded to come to a preordained conclusion – the studies are picked for this very reason, as I mentioned with the Australia study. “Women who have sex with women” is not equivalent to “lesbians”; this study is included, deliberately, because most people won’t recognize (or admit) the difference, and what’s being said here.
And yes, I think we do need a study to tell us that “the behavior under discussion is harmful.” First, because I’m still not sure what “behavior” you’re speaking of. You make this statement:
“But the very behaviors that basically define male homosexuality are physically injurious to the participants. This has been documented in medical literature for many years and yet for some reason it is completely ignored by some today.”
What are you talking about? I know of no data that shows that anal sex by itself, with one partner, is harmful; is that what you’re contending here? If so, why would this list of contagious diseases be the result? If you want to discuss it, you need to show sources, so that we can look at what it’s actually saying. I think you’ll agree that data gathered from STD clinics has a built-in bias in the direction you’re trying to go in. Correct?
In any case, many gay men do not engage in anal sex. And many heterosexuals do.
If you’re speaking of promiscuous behavior, then I agree: this has the potential to be harmful. But again: do you actually think there are many promiscuous gay Christians? Aren’t you in fact “preaching to the choir” here, so to speak? Why do you think sexually promiscuous people – of any orientation – would want to come to Church, when it’s a choice to do so?
Are you saying you want the Church to interpret Leviticus as forbidding anal sex, and to enforce this? I’m pretty sure Conservative and Orthodox Jews do this already – although I know some simply forbid homosexual behavior of any type. Does the Christian Church want to get into policing this sort of thing; it seems out of character? Personally, I’d think it would be better to discuss the “meta” issues of respect for one’s partner, and for oneself, which would involve renunciation of promiscuous behavior.

Reply
2005-02-14

bls

(I admit, though, that in the past I’ve suggested that a simple ban on anal sex would allow gay people to be Christians and to have relationships at the same time. Forbidding people intimacy is the ultimate in cruelty – it’s highly un-natural, as I mentioned earlier – and I assure you that you won’t have any gay Christians at all if you force this. And of course, many people seem highly bothered by anal sex in the first place; ever heard Howard Stern on the topic? Interpreting Leviticus this way would solve all these problems at once.
But it does seem out of character for a religion that explictly renounces laws to suddenly go bonkers and enforce one particular sexual rule. It doesn’t make sense in the big picture. You know what I mean?
Again, I think we’re going to have to look at this from some other angle: the non-promiscuity angle. And then I think we’re going to have to get out of people’s bedrooms and let them be human beings.)

Reply
2005-02-14

bls

I have a few more questions. What is the Church? Are prostitutes and people with STDs allowed in? What would Jesus say and do?
Sometimes it seems that the Church is in fact a country club, rather than the hospital it started out being. So which is it? And what is its function? To demand that people “shape up” – or to show them the light of Christ and allow that to work on their lives? Do you think people need to change their behavior first? For whose benefit?
Does the Church need to have a lot of rules, other than those that allow it to function without disruption? If so, is that its true function: to be the arbiter of behavior, the maker of rules? Is it there for social cohesiveness, or for religious experience and enlightenment? Is it there to help the sick, or to make the well feel comfortable?
If not, are gay people a disruption just by themselves? If so, in what way? What are people afraid of?

Reply
2005-02-14

bls

(See, the thing is, Wayne, that by making this about what gay people do “to” each other, and by making us anathema in and of ourselves – which I’m afraid is exactly how what you’re saying comes across – perpetuates this cycle forever.
When Christians tell us that even our love for each other is by itself wrong, and that we are loathed by God for what we do – that showing our love to our partners is “harmful” to them – they keep gay people eternally away from the light of Christ. Please keep in mind that God designed the universe and that the insanity in this equation does not compute in that good universe.
Again: much of the harm to gay people comes from the prejudice against gay people. It’s very true that there are some irresponsible gay folks out there – but of course there are many irresponsible straight folks out there, too. And why do you hold gay Christians responsible – and in Christian terms – for what gay non-Christians do?)

Reply
2005-02-14

Wayne

Bls,
As promised, for whatever they are worth, the following are some sources in reference to the risks of anal sex:
“Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men”, Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6), 1633-1645, (November 1990), Anne Rampalo.
“The Gay Bowel Syndrome:Clinico-pathologic Correlation in 260 Cases”, Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2), 184-192 (1976), Henry Kazal, et. al.
Some sites with more information:
http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth
http://www.gayhealthchannel/stdmsm
I’ve read over your posts again and, yes, what you are saying is true about extending the umbrella. I have seen more blindness, mean-spiritedness and ignorance concerning gay people than I ever care to. The concern that I was addressing to DC when I made the first post was that in a rush to be “the good and tolerant ones” that we not sweep unpleasant facts under the rug as if they don’t exist.

Reply
2005-02-14

Erin

Wayne: Thanks for getting specific with your citations. To answer your question, raw stats should never convince any scientist of anything; belief in a particular conclusion involves such matters as: where was the research published? who conducted it? who funded it, and what biases/conflicts of interest might they have? was the sample randomly obtained from the relevant population? are the control groups appropriate? are there alternative explanations for the data?
I did some preliminary poking at the journals you mentioned, just looking up the “impact factor” of each (a number that summarizes the prestige of the journal; it is not a perfect proxy for the quality of the research contained therein, but it’s often the best that researchers in other fields, like myself, can do). Both are relatively low; Medical Clinics of North America is ranked #70 out of 217 published medical journals; Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science is ranked #116 out of 217. So, the articles made it past peer review, meaning someone with some modicum of clue thought them a helpful contribution to the literature, but the findings probably shouldn’t be trusted the way we would trust in, e.g., a publication in Science or Nature.
I note also that the articles cited are quite old (1990, 1976) and so I question whether there might be more recent information that bears on the issue. The medical profession is famous for being fairly conservative, and I am skeptical that many doctors would have looked fondly on homosexual behavior as early as 1976. It’s not a real red flag but it’s something I’ll keep in mind as I look at the articles.
As for the other “good scientist” questions, in relation to these studies, here are the things I want to know: How was the population sampled? (For instance, gay bars are not a good place to get a truly random sample. Neither are STD clinics, as bls points out.) Were there appropriate control groups? (Ideas for this off the top of my head include women who engage in anal sex with males; women who engage in other forms of anal contact; monogamous gay males; celibate gay males (hey, for all we know, genetic predisposition to homosexuality also gives one digestive troubles)). Have the researchers controlled for promiscuity (an unfortunate aspect of many gay social circles, I hear)? – overusage of any delicate tissue can lead to abrasions. What about drug usage? Have they controlled for other STIs/STDs as a primary cause (e.g., HIV), or medical treatments for said infections? Did sexual protections such as condoms and lube have any effect? How do the rates of infections associated with anal sex compare to rates of infections associated with other forms of sex (in women, bladder infections and yeast infections come to mind)?

Reply
2005-02-14

Erin

(continued)
So I just looked at PubMed to see if I could find the Rampalo article, and I didn’t have any luck. It’s odd that it’s not indexed; that’s pretty clearly the sort of journal I’d expect NIH to watch.
They do, however, list the Kazal et al. article, though the fulltext is not available. It’s from the pre-HIV era, so certain things may have changed with respect to medical practitioners’ understanding of gay male health and also with respect to gay male culture itself (or so one would hope, though people can certainly be dim). Also, this study is classified as a “case report,” which is kind of like the front line of scientific research: doctors find interesting stuff in their clinics and then research scientists go out and do controlled studies on the topics. So it’s unlikely that many of the questions I have as a basic researcher are answered in that article. That’s not the fault of Kazal et al.; it’s just how science works.
Not to be daunted 😉 I did some poking of my own in PubMed and here’s what I found:
Laughon et al, 1988 note that HIV and bowel trouble are related, as I suspected (oldish article)
Cone, 1986 confirms that AIDS and bowel trouble are related (again, old article)
M Scarce, 1997 declares testily that GBS is “neither gay-specific, nor confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome.” One notes that this was published in the Journal of Homosexuality, so one does suspect some bias here ;).
Part of the trouble is that searching on “gay bowel syndrome” doesn’t produce many hits, and no recent ones; I get the sense that this is a term not much used in the medical literature anymore, for whatever reason. I did find one article (Hastings & Weber, 1994) that compared it to “inflammatory bowel disease,” which seems a much more widespread phenomenon. Karlinger et al., 2000 describe some of the correlates of IBD, but there is no mention of sexual orientation or sexual behavior in the abstract, although immune system malfunction is mentioned (AIDS again?). So it’s unclear whether or not these people are talking about the same thing.
So, I don’t feel comfortable drawing any particular conclusions from what I’ve read. Given this information, I don’t believe that a conclusion such as “Male-male sex, in and of itself, is harmful” is warranted. I do feel that I now have evidence that giving one’s partner HIV is harmful, but I believe I already knew that ;).

Reply
2005-02-14

bls

Yes, 1976 is too old a study; the gay world has changed 180 degrees since then and you won’t get any true idea about what’s going on today.
Again: in “common sense” terms, I can’t think of any reason why anal sex between two men in an exclusive partnership would be harmful. The point is to ensure that it’s exclusive, but that’s a concept already on the books. I don’t see why such a relationship should be made anathema, as it seems to me that you originally suggested.
Again: promiscuity – gay or straight – is not to be desired. And Christians should, you’re right, treat one another with respect – but nobody seems to pay any attention to this notion when it comes to gay people.

Reply
2005-02-15

Wayne

Erin, bls:
I want to thank you for your patience and decency in this conversation. As it has gone on, I have felt lower and lower and been more and more convicted about my attitude. I have violated at least a couple of Christian precepts:
(1) Looking at the spec in my brothers eye, while ignoring the plank in my own.
(2) Focusing on one (to me) negative while ignoring a great body of positive.
The sad thing is that my gay friends in the past and present have been some of the most sensitive and decent people that I have known. I would truly hate for them to think I would ignore all of their good qualities because of my uncertainty about one particular point. As I would hate to be judged on one issue to the exclusion of any goodness and decency that God has wrought in me.
Bls,
In reference to who belongs in the church: it’s obvious from reading the Gospels that Jesus was more interested in ministering to the down-trodden and those in spiritual poverty than to those who already thought they had it all worked out. Through this conversation, I think I’ve been brought face to face with a little more of my own spiritual poverty.
About the academic point of “causing harm”, it think it shouldn’t be ignored, but rather viewed in a larger context where neither gay nor straight are targeted as if it were directed at them. Having on blinders about this was my initial mistake.
Thank you again for the respectful way you have handled this. I sincerely believe that God was working through both of you to speak to me.

Reply
2005-02-15

Erin

Wayne: You’re welcome. My contribution here has been as much about my identity as a scientist as it is about my commitment to gay rights. Thank you for being willing to listen!

Reply
2005-02-16

David Huff

Wayne, Yes, I’ll freely admit that I certainly may have come across badly. It wasn’t my intention to do so. I mostly likely reacted badly to what seemed to me to be yet another replay of the same old arguments. mea culpa.
Here’s where I’m coming from on this:
1. No reputable medical or psychological authority posits that homosexuality is inherently maladjusted.
2. A homosexual orientation is of the same class as skin color or handedness – a harmless & innate phenomenon. It is not rightly compared to pedophilia, adultery, or other harmful behaviors, and to do so is horribly disrespectful and insulting.
2. Treating GLBT people differently in a legal sense is a violation of their Civil Rights as U.S. citizens, and treating them badly on a personal level is plain ol’ bigotry.
3. The writers in Scripture who seem to reject homosexual behavior are doing so from a 2,000+ year old, Middle Eastern cultural perspective. I see no reason to accept this particular perspective as some sort of revelation from God that holds throughout time. It’s the same situation as treating women like second class citizens, accepting slavery, or eating shrimp.
There you go. I’m sure we disagree on practically all of these. I don’t require that you agree with me, and you cannot require the same of me. So the question now is, being that we aren’t going to convince each other, can we co-exist in the same church ? (assuming you’re an Episcopalian)

Reply
2005-02-16

Wayne

Dave,
Thank you for your response. I accept your apology and forgive you.
It might surprise you, but I agree with each of your points at least to a good degree.
I’ll start with the bottom and work back to the top:
3. I agree that trying to condemn homosexuality by means of scriptural literalism seems ludicrous. I think that anyone who claims to take all of scripture literally either hasn’t read all of scripture or they are deluding themselves. Hopefully no one stones their disobedient children at the city gates and I’m hoping that we wouldn’t impeach our presidents for refusing to commit genocide.
To me, disagreements about the authority of scripture are the most troublesome and likely to be the most enduring. In my experience, trying to convince a fundamentalist that the Bible isn’t to be taken literally is synomymous with destroying their entire world view. The notion is very unsettling for them, because they see giving up scriptural inerrancy as giving up all objective values and the very foundations of their faith. If I thought my world were crumbling around me, I would be fearful too, so I feel sympathy for them, but not their views.
2. Equal treatment under the law is an indispensable American value. And respectful treatment of each other on a personal level is one of our most cherished Christian values. In the area of marriage, I honestly do not have an answer. I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that people should be able to abide in a loving relationship with whomever they consider their soulmate to be. But I understand the traditionalist concern that changing the definition of marriage might have some deliterious effect on society. I know some of this is pure bigotry, but I have heard reasonable voices who are concerned that a slippery slope will result and that if marriage comes to mean “anything” it will soon mean “nothing” and society will be the worse for it. Is this sophistry? I don’t know; I wish I did.
The libertarian streak in me thinks that if government would get out of the business of taxing and bestowing benefits based on marital status then all of this wouldn’t matter. Religious freedom would allow any church to marry whomever they saw fit without any need for sanction from government. Two people who love each other, three people who love each other, one person who loves himself – whatever their god reveals to them as appropriate.
1. Judgements about what is appropriate and what is maladjusted are rarely totally based on rational grounds. A lot of these types of judgements are subjective and values-based.
The rational question of appropriateness begs the question “appropriate for what purpose?” In terms of a happy and productive life, it seems obvious to me from history and my own personal experience that heterosexuality and homosexuality are both appropriate.
My question in the original post (which I confess was myopic and hurtful at best) could be more appropriately boiled down to the question: “Even in a monogamous relationship, are certain sexual behaviors appropriate to long-term health?”
My thought is that, if our aim is to create dialog amongst disagreeing factions, getting even the uncomfortable questions on the table is important. I was moved by Bls’ recent responses here to these issues. I wish that more people on all sides could have conversations like this.

Reply
2005-02-17

Barry Fernelius

I’ve been listening to your conversation for some time. Christ says “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am.” Wayne, David, Erin, and bls: Thank you for conducting your discussion in a way that truly indicates Christ’s presence.
I pray that the entire Anglican Communion will find a way to be this rational and charitable.

Reply
2005-02-17

David Huff

Wayne, I strongly support what you mentioned above as a libertarian view, as I lean that way myself quite often. It would delight me to no end if gov’t would either get out of the business of taxing and bestowing benefits based on marital status or freely offer them to all “marriages.” (with my strong preference being for the former). The latter seems to be the way Canada is going, and as long as they don’t use force of gov’t to impose their civil definition upon different religious institutions, then I guess that’ll work, too.
My real concern is that the civil benefits of marriage – easy joint ownership of property, hospital visitation rights, “spousal” insurance benefits, etc… be avail one way or the other to any adult citizens who voluntarily enter into that sort of “contract.” These new state laws that specifically bar that sort of thing, based purely upon the sex of the participants, are truly scary in both a bigoted and an “intrusive, big gov’t” sort of way.
And thanks again for the further elucidation of your position. I’m sure I “snapped” at you, and my only defense is that many of us mainline types in “Network” dioceses are getting a bit jumpy and quick on the trigger lately…

Reply
2005-02-18

Danielle

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
God made Eve and Adam not Eve and Madame!

Reply
2005-02-21

bls

Then who made Steve and Madame?

Reply