Chad Thompson makes an interesting point about using social statistics to argue against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Even if it is true that the average homosexual only lives to age 43, or that homosexuals are much more likely to be highly promiscuous than heterosexuals, this may not be true of the homosexual you are speaking to. They may be age 65 and engaged in long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships their whole life.
Additionally, such statistics do not necessarily show that homosexuality is bad or immoral. What if homosexuals argued against the validity of heterosexual relationships and opposite-sex marriage on the basis that 43% of marriages end in divorce, and 3/10 women killed in this country die at the hands of their husband or boyfriend? Would you be prepared to conclude that heterosexuality or marriage is immoral, or ought to be avoided? Surely not![1] So why think someone who believes homosexuality is morally and socially benign will be convinced by statistics showing the dark side of homosexuality? They could always argue, as heterosexuals do, that while these statistics are alarming and cause for concern, the solution is not to condemn homosex but to encourage homosexuals to behave better.
I have conflicting thoughts on this. On the one hand, statistics are generalizations. As such, they can be counter-productive when speaking to someone to whom the statistic does not apply. For example, if you were trying to convince a gay man that homosexuality is wrong by citing statistics about the prevalence of disease, promiscuity, and dissolution rates in the gay community, and he reveals that he is a healthy gay man in a long-term monogamous relationship, what would you do? Your argument against his behavior is immediately undermined because all of those ills do not apply to him. In such a situation one either has to retreat in silence and embarrassment, or admit that his homosexuality is ok.
On the other hand, we all recognize the value of statistics to make decisions regarding what ought or ought not to be allowed in society. For example, statistics show that a high number of car accidents are caused by people using their cell phones while driving. As a result, some states (like CA) have passed laws forbidding anyone from utilizing a cell phone while driving (unless you have a hand-free device). Did they do so because everyone who uses a cell phone while driving gets involved in an accident? No, not at all. But the number of accidents caused from this behavior is significant enough that society has deemed it appropriate to prohibit everyone from engaging in this behavior – even those who are more observant, and not likely to cause social ills from their use of a cell phone while driving. The same is true of the ills caused by homosexuality. While the social ills caused by homosex may not apply to everyone who engages in homosex, the social ills are great enough that society is justified in judging such behavior to be wrong (although I’m not saying society should make homosex illegal).
Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is not that statistics should be avoided in drawing conclusions about the propriety or morality of homosex, but rather that our use of statistical information should not be used as a primary argument against homosex. Perhaps its apologetic contribution should be that of a supporting argument.
I am also conflicted about the fact that social statistics could be used by both sides to show that there is something amiss about the other side’s sexual identity. If I do not see the staggering heterosexual divorce rate as evidence that there is something inherently amiss with heterosexual relationships, then why should homosexuals be convinced by negative social statistics regarding gays? While the social statistics may reveal a more negative picture of the gay relationships than heterosexual ones, when the rates are as high as they are for both communities, perhaps this is not a good argument to make. And yet, we would expect for unnatural and immoral behaviors to lead to social and health ills. So it is not inappropriate to use statistical information to inform our judgments about the propriety or morality of a certain behavior using statistical information.
Perhaps the lesson here is to focus on what is causing the problem. For example, while rates of sexually transmitted diseases may be too high among both heterosexuals and homosexuals, heterosexuals have high rates of disease because they are using their sexual organs in the right way but in the wrong context (promiscuous sex apart from a committed marital relationship), whereas homosexuals have high rates of disease because they are using their sexual organs in an inappropriate context and in an inappropriate manner. While both groups deserve moral disapproval for their immoral behavior, what needs to be recognized is that disease would not be an issue for the heterosexual community if heterosexuals stopped being promiscuous and limited their sexual expression for the context of a monogamous relationship. The same cannot be said of the homosexual community. Even if they limited their sexual expression to the context of monogamous homosexual relationships, disease would still be an issue in the gay community because homosex by its nature is unhealthy, regardless of the context in which it is practiced.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
[1]Chad Thompson, “Banning Gay Marriage Is Not The Answer”; available from http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/augustweb-only/8-30-22.0.html?start=1&mid=551; Internet; accessed 14 December 2011.
February 29, 2012 at 7:21 am
Perhaps you intend this only for your brethren within apologetic circles but I have several thoughts.
But first want to give you a chance to clarify your point. In the last sentence of your last paragraph, you wrote:
“. . . homosex by its nature is unhealthy, regardless of the context in which it is practiced.”
Please clarify what you see as the medical implications that befall a lifelong sexually-active but monogamous homosexual and why this is compellingly greater than the medical implications for similarly active, monogamous heterosexuals.
By the way I cannot find the word ‘homosex’ in any of three current, widely used dictionaries. Nor can I find it at Dictionary.com. I understand that you were trying to bring clarity, but given your distaste for homosexuality, it does seem belittling. Also, it’s unclear whether you are using this as code for anal intercourse or are referring to any sex between men. Better to use the longer form ‘homosexual sex’.
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 7:44 am
Jason, you seem to be veering again into the political arena. OK.
The Old Testament speaks briefly about homosexuality. The New Testament is nearly silent. Christ had a great deal more to say about adultery and fornication than he did about homosexuality. He had (has) a hundred times more to say about helping the poor, the widow and the orphan.
And yet, the Republican evangelical base recently voted overwhelmingly for a presidential candidate who has an established long history of adultery and fornication. That same candidate would gut social security and other programs that have been so helpful to the poor, the widow, and the orphan.
If Republicans were really motivated by what Scripture teaches, they would fight for the poor. Instead, they often sit in soft chairs and recite the Fox News mantra that the poor must blame themselves. That, of course, is sometimes true – about 10% of the time.
My point is that Christians do not think for themselves. They do not really read the Bible they pound their fists upon.
And, of course, I strayed from your point. Should we use statistics to try to convince gay people they are wrong? No, I think that is a distraction from what is most important – spreading the Good News. Or, a corollary, should we chime in that we are against Gays in the military? Well, why is there not a movement to keep adulterers out of the military?
Randy
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Randy, I would like to echo your point about what is most important – spreading the good news of Jesus.
It’s a fine line sometimes of how far we should go in certain arenas and we should exercise caution as Christians in this regard. It is not easy because we feel this burning need and are even obligated at times to speak what is right from the Godly teaching we espouse to.
The problem with entering these political debates is that we can come across as self-righteous (not saying this is the case with Jason) and this is not the message we are to send to unbelievers.
We have no righteousness of our own and are indebted to Jesus Christ for His righteousness that He has given us through the cross. Heaven forbid that we should ever proclaim anything but the goodness and righteousness of Christ – that is the only thing that can change a person and turn them towards God.
Naz
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Naz, I appreciate your comments. I was once a Republican’s Republican, and now am totally disgusted with that party. It is the party of the selfish. It is no longer the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. I was a three times per week Church goer, many retreats, taught Sunday School, board of deacons, etc. Now, I am disgusted with most Christians. I am not disgusted with Christianity – I am more convinced than ever. Randy
LikeLike
February 29, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Naz, yes about the politics.
Randy, they’re with Ayn Rand, in effect! I call Social Darwiniism Spencer- Rand after Herbert Spencer and her!
That is not true Darwinism.: differenntial reproduction captures the reality whlst Spncer’s fittest misleads.
Yes to those Republicans and to TR! Even Pres. Nixon was for OSHA and the EPA!
Science, as Sam Harris notes can inform morality,but descriptions aren’t necessarily prescriptions.
Anyway, the selfish gene leads to altruism!
This blog then opposes those extemists! Blessings and good will!
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Andrew,
Sure, I will clarify. Anal sex carries with it a huge increase in the risk of anal cancer. Also, whenever one is engaged in sexual practices that involve an area of the body that contains fecal matter (whether anal sex, or oral-anal contact), one is opening themselves up to bacterial and parasitic infections. The same risks are not associated with vaginal sex. And it is of no coincidence that 60% of AIDs infections occur in the gay community, which constitutes only ~2% of the population.
There is also a report in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Robert Hogg et al (“Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” 1997: 657) that found the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men to be between 8-20 years less than their heterosexual counterparts.
As for the term “homosex,” I got this term from Robert Gagnon, the premier Christian authority on homosexuality and the Bible. I think it clarifies the issue, and is concise. After all, “homosexual” can be used to refer to one’s sexual orientation as well as their sexual activities. “Homosex” makes it clear that one is referring to behavior rather than desire. “Homosexual sex” would work as well, but it is longer, and again, there is the ambiguous nature of the term “homosexual.”
Jason
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Randy,
Touching on a political issue does not mean it is relevant to rant about this or that party.
Personally, I don’t care about what any party has done. But I do care about your reasoning, and I don’t agree with it. First, I disagree that the NT is nearly silent on homosexuality. When you prorate it, the NT speaks of it more than the OT. And the NT has some of the clearest teaching on the matter (Rom 1).
As for Jesus not talking about homosexuality…so? What does that prove? He didn’t speak about child molestation either. What follows from that? This is just a red herring.
And if you think Jesus was more concerned about giving to the poor than He was about people being in a right relationship with God–which includes submitting to God’s moral law–then you and I are reading different Bibles.
Jason
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm
And let me add that homosexuality is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a political issue that has a moral foundation as well. Just because society has to address moral matters does not mean that once it does so every time someone talks about the issue they are “getting political.” No, I am getting moral. After all, I don’t hear anyone say when discussing murder, “You are getting political.”
Jason
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Jason, I asked the question within the context of monogamous relationships whether heterosexual or homosexual. I asked the question that way because you wrote:
“Even if they limited their sexual expression to the context of monogamous homosexual relationships, disease would still be an issue in the gay community because homosex by its nature is unhealthy, regardless of the context in which it is practiced.”
Anal cancer is fairly rare and the greatest incidence is among woman over 50, so I am curious how you arrived at the conclusion homosexual males are at proportionately greater risk. The driver of the increased risk among homosexual males is the increasing likelihood of contracting human papilloma virus as the number of sexual partners increases – so this fails the monogamy test. (By the way HPV is a risk factor in cervical cancer of which gay men and even gay woman are at lower risks of contracting).
It’s possible you’re unaware, as other Christians I have encountered, that HIV is not acquired through monogamous homosexual sex. It is a blood bourn disease that can be, and chiefly is, acquired through anal sex but only when one partner is already infected. So again this fails the monogamy test.
HIV is experiencing a dramatic life expectancy increase through new drug treatments, that the 8 to 20 year shortfall in life expectancy is rapidly closing. Even since studies in 1997.
This leaves your general medical concerns over infection due to exposure of fecal matter. Some of this is valid, even if overplayed.
I do wonder though if you aren’t searching for medical consequences to support an already held moral position. A moral position that frankly can be summarized as homosex is yucky.
Unfortunately that leaves you in the politically and logically untenable position of arguing that because homosexuals might be more promiscuous we should deny them legal structures that would likely encourage greater stability and less promiscuity. Further, you are denying homosexuals the positive health effects, both psychological and medical, we know accrue to those in relationships. Your solution is not the cure but the disease.
Your whole argument here is a swing and a miss. I ask you to reconsider your position.
On a personal level, I strongly object to your equating the moral questions of murder and homosexuality. It takes a great imagination to find societal harm in homosexuality that is comparable to murder.
And I write this as a committed heterosexual.
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:23 pm
“And let me add that homosexuality is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.” (Jason)
And being that this is so — and knowing that as far as politics goes the corrupt politicians are going to legalize homosexual ‘marriage’ in all 50 states no matter what it takes — let me just comment on the moral issue with out the political part which we have no power to do anything about because its completely under the control of a corrupt and out of control government.
As to the moral issue, there is no need for debate. If you’re in a church that even thinks there is a need for debate, you should find a different church. Its clear cut that homosexuality is wrong. It is condemned by the Bible and by nature.
But the problem is that Paul says “we are justified by faith and not by works” (and people wrongly interpret works as ‘morality’ rather than ‘ceremony’) and so they say that’s although technically it may be a sin, it can’t damn you. This is where the homosexual agenda creeps into the church. It is made acceptable not by arguing that it is not sin but by arguing that sin is irrelevant because “we are justified by faith and not by works.” Thank you Marcion for popularizing this freak Paul, and thank you Catholic church for canonizing him! You bastards!
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm
“Christ had a great deal more to say about adultery and fornication than he did about homosexuality.” (Randy)
This is very wrong, Randy, and shows you don’t know much about the Bible or English, and its probably your pastor’s fault. Fornication is an obsolete word in our language that only gets used in religion, and therefore it is the pastor’s job to properly define it since you wont learn what it means in school. Uneducated people tend to think that fornication means “pre-marital sex between a man and a women.” It doesn’t mean that. It really refers to ANY sexual activity that is forbidden. That mean, adultery is fornication but fornication is not necessarily adultery. Adultery is fornication because adultery is forbidden sexual activity and that’s what fornication means. Pre-marital sex is also forbidden and therefore fornication; bestiality is forbidden and therefore fornication; homosexuality is forbidden and therefore fornication. This is made even clearer when we aren’t talking about pure English but about translation from the Greek word pornea, which if you look up in a Lexicon, you will find means “any sexual activity that is forbidden.” Therefore, since Jesus’ standard for understanding what sexual activity is forbidden is the Old Testament which forbids homosexuality, when Jesus’ uses the word fornication (pornea) that word includes homosexuality in it as it also includes bestiality in it.
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“By the way HPV is a risk factor in cervical cancer of which gay men and even gay woman are at lower risks of contracting.” (B. Andrew Leder)
You are very wrong about this. That doesn’t even make sense. Every time I go to the Dentist, they tell me about this new test they have to test for Mouth Cancer and how Mouth Cancer is on the rise in MEN, and they want to give me the test and I decline. This Mouth Cancer is of course related to HPV. And if you ask them “why is Mouth Cancer on the rise in MEN”? They tell you, because Oral Sex is on the rise in men. (That’s how I know I don’t need the test.) Hmmm…why would Oral Sex be on the rise in men? Because of homosexuality. DUH. So the reality is homosexual men are more likely to contract HPV. But instead of cervical cancer they get mouth cancer.
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm
“No, I am getting moral. After all, I don’t hear anyone say when discussing murder, ‘You are getting political.'” (Jason)
Its getting that way, actually. Its that way with abortion which is murder. Euthanasia too. Pretty soon it will be that way with the death panels. All these people that are pro-homosexuality are also pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. Yet, against the death penalty for rapists and murders. Kill the babies and kill the old people, but let the criminals live, cry the homosexual lovers. It all goes together. They just hate everything good and love everything evil.
LikeLike
April 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“We have no righteousness of our own and are indebted to Jesus Christ for His righteousness that He has given us through the cross.” (Naz)
Lol. See what I mean about Paul? We’d be so much better off if we could remove that freak from the canon.
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 11:46 am
I say quit thinking you have the right to judge people and what they do in their own house and in their own bedrooms. Let God judge other people’s sexual promiscuity and you just worry about your own. That’s the problem nowadays, is that everyone wants to be like God. You shouldn’t pass down your judgment on others anymore than they should pass down judgment on you. If you worry about your own life and not others, more good will come from it than your biased interpretation of what ought to be.
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Jason,
That sounds nice as a soundbite, but it doesn’t work in reality. The fact of the matter is that moral judgments are unavoidable. Indeed, you are making a moral judgment when you judge me for judging others. If you took your own medicine, you would have never posted this comment because you only did so since you are worrying about my life rather than just your own.
Moral judgments are also good. How could society function if it did not make a distinction between what is morally good and morally bad? Why should society act as if two behaviors are both good when one produces bad results and one produces good results? Not only would it be irresponsible for society to remain neutral on all of these things, but it would be immoral to do so.
Jason
LikeLike
August 14, 2012 at 12:34 am
Over 40% of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, did you figure this into your ignorant beliefs?
LikeLike
August 14, 2012 at 10:10 am
Thomas,
Have you figured courtesy and civility into your dialogues?
And how about you cite a source? And while you are at it, why don’t you tell me what your point is.
Jason
LikeLike