Here's something that was reported in the "Health Briefing" section of Toronto's "The Globe and Mail" on July 7, 1994:
"Homosexuals no threat"
CHICAGO - A study of sexually abused children found that they were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people, the American Academy of Pediatrics says. The study, published in the July 1994 issue of "Pediatrics", explored the assertion that gays and lesbians are at particular risk of sexually molesting children. This was one of the justifications presented for strong anti-gay legislation placed on ballots in several States in 1992.Of 249 cases of child abuse studied, only two offenders were identified as gay or lesbian. In this sample, a child's risk of being molested by the heterosexual partner of a relative is more than 100 times greater than by somebody who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.
'As public policy may hinge on the potential risk homosexual individuals pose to children, the issue must be addressed', said the researchers from the University of Colorado, Denver's Children's Hospital, the Kempe Children's Center and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine. The researchers concluded: 'There is no support for the claim to this effect by groups advocating legislation limiting rights of homosexuals.'"
This is not the first study to have found that heterosexuals molest children far more than homosexuals do. A good reference is Men Who Rape (1979, Plenum Press) by A.N. Groth with H.J. Birnbaum. See chapter 4, "Patterns of Rape," particularly pp 148-149.
I have a video called "Hate, Lies and Videotape" which talks about, and has some examples of, hate videos portraying Jews and -- from the Klan -- blacks. I can copy it for you. The similarities between The Gay Agenda and these old hate videos is eerie.
Likewise, Colorado for Family Values utilized a campaign of disinformation to scare people to build support for limiting the rights of homosexuals in Colorado under Amendment 2. For example:
* CFV claimed that in Laguna Beach, CA, "a city with one of the country's largest gay communities and strongest 'gay rights' ordinances," a three year old boy entered a public park restroom where he saw three gay men engaging in group sex. The boy's mother attempted to file a complaint with the Laguna Beach Police Department. Their reply: With a gay rights ordinance in place, there was nothing they could do.Truth: According to Kenneth Frank, city manager for the City of Laguna Beach, the city's municipal code which prevents discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation bears no relationship to CFV's campaign material. In this case, the alleged woman never filed a complaint. The Laguna Beach Police vigorously enforce laws which prohibit sexual activities in public places. "In no way does the ordinance prevent the Laguna Beach Police Department from investigating complaints about alleged public indecency. "CFV's campaign material is wrong in everything it says. The police are not at all prohibited from enforcing the law."
* CFV claims that in Minnesota, the Catholic Archdiocese was assessed $35,000 in fines and damages for refusing to open Church facilities to a homosexual club. In Hawaii, churches have been warned that regardless of their beliefs, all staff positions save the pastorate must be made available to homosexuals.
Truth: The Catholic Archdiocese was assessed a $35,000 fine because they tried to prevent Dignity, a gay Catholic denomination, from using the non-denominational campus chapel at the University of Minnesota, PUBLIC property. A Hawaiian church brought suit against the state because it was concerned that it would be required to hire gay people, but a Federal District Judge dismissed the case because the law exempts churches. All ordinances which protect homosexuals from discrimination exempt religious institutions. No church is required to hire a homosexual contrary to its doctrine.
* In their March 1993 newsletter CFV Report, CFV claims that the Seattle Police Department has established hiring quotas for homosexual officers.
Truth: According to Sergeant Tony Enders from the Seattle Police Department's Equal Employment Opportunity recruiting office, CFV's claims are "completely false and unfounded." The SPD does hiring outreach by advertising in gay/lesbian papers, but it "does not have any affirmative action or quotas programs for homosexuals."
Another thing I hear bandied about is that homosexuals do not procreate and so they must "recruit" young people as older people die off. I believe this is a big source of fear for those who believe it. Related, some have argued that if homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle," then it is not similar to other classifications -- such as those based on color -- specifically spelled out for protection from discrimination in non-discrimination statutes. (One obvious question such an argument raises is "Why is one's chosen religion specifically spelled out for protection from discrimination in non-discrimination statutes?)
Both of the above concerns deal with what makes people gay and are based on the underlying assumption that it is a choice. Personally, I do not know why I am gay. I can remember feeling sexually attracted to men from age 10 on, but don't have any specific reason to pin it on. I do know, however, that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that gay people are at least in part biologically predisposed to homosexuality. I'm including a reprint from the March 1993 issue of The Atlantic Monthly that recaps the findings to date.
There have been more reports since that article was published. In the July 1993 edition of the journal Science, researchers from the National Cancer Institute report that a portion of the X chromosome may cause homosexuality.
Similarly, Harvard and Princeton released a study in the summer of 1993. Those researchers found that the original belief that 30% have had a sexual experience with someone of the same sex was wrong. They used lie detector tests and other means to determine that 45% have had multiple homosexual contact (Sex oral or anal or masturbation), 25% have had homosexual tendencies (liking someone of the same sex or having a "crush") and 5% have not had any of the above. The other 25% fit into two categories: 10 percent homosexual (preferred sex) 10% bisexual and a 5 percent margin of error.
Another interesting point is that homosexuality has been observed in all animals.
Since I was talking about the causes of homosexuality, above, I wanted to include the following questionnaire. I think it does a good job of highlighting the fears and prejudices our society instills about why people are homosexual, but in a humorous way.
HETEROSEXUAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Martin Rochlin, Ph.D.
January 1977
1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual.?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
4. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
5. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
6. Heterosexuals have histories of failure in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?
7. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?
8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?
9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
10. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me so long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?
11. If you should choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?
12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive, heterosexual object choice, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?
15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role playing?
16. How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the obvious, biological, and temperamental differences between you are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a woman sexually, or vice versa?
17. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
18. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
19. Shouldn't you ask the fringe straight types, like swingers, Hell's Angels, and Jesus freaks, to conform more? Wouldn't that improve your image?
20. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual, considering the menace of overpopulation?
21. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?
22. Do heterosexuals hate or distrust others of the same sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?
23. Why are heterosexuals so promiscuous?
24. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear he/she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own feelings?
While we're on the subject of sex, I need to point out that "sodomy" refers to oral or anal sex. Few heterosexuals I know have never practiced oral sex. Also, since I don't have sex often it hardly defines who I am.
Whatever the causes of homosexuality and whatever our views about it, I think both you and I would agree that much of our society's negative viewpoint toward it is created by the widespread belief that the Bible is against it. Let me touch upon politics and religion for a while.
Our continent was colonized by people persecuted for their religious beliefs. That is why the founding fathers created the separation of church and state, so that others would not have to endure persecution if they did not believe the same as the majority did. James Madison wrote that the purpose of the separation of church & state, "is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." That's why the Constitution has protections for minorities: They did not want the numbers of the majority to be used to persecute the minority.
Here in Houston we have a prominent member of the Republican party and Christian Coalition named Dr. Steven Hotze. He suggested that -- as I'm sure you've heard from others many times -- our government be based on Christian principles. While this may sound good, a lady summed up the problems with that in a letter included in the January 3, 1993 Houston Chronicle pretty well.
Sharon Sernik, of Bryan: Regarding Dr. Steven Hotze's Dec. 20 Outlook article:
Hotze states that the answer to all of our woes is for America to become a Christian church-run state. What an interesting concept. History has some wonderful examples for us of what a Christian state can offer: the Inquisition, the Crusades, witch hunts, the list goes on.Hundreds of thousands of people tortured, raped and murdered -- all in the name of Jesus.
I'm curious as to what kind of Christian state this would be, Catholic? Mormon? Seventh Day Adventist? Southern Baptist?
I suspect that what Hotze has in mind is forcing everyone to live according to his interpretation of God's will.
I consider myself to be a fairly religious person, and I feel that the place for religion is in the home and in the synagogue, temple, mosque or church of one's choosing. The concept of the separation of church and state is a good one. I hope I never see the day when our government tries to force one man's narrow little vision of God onto all its citizens.
Politics
Marianne Means, a Washington-based columnist for the Hearst Newspapers, wrote in the December 12, 1993, (Sunday) Houston Chronicle, "Gay-bashing is a favorite tactic of the Religious Right, which believes that emotional manipulation of public discomfort with that lifestyle can be its ticket to political power."
There are certainly many wonderful preachers who spread Jesus' wonderful message to those who don't know it. Nonetheless, there are others who use the Testament merely for their own financial gain. (Jim Bakker, who was convicted in 1989 of stealing $150 million from his followers, comes to mind.) In some of these cases, I think these self-seeking preachers use a controversial subject in order to solicit donations. It's my opinion that this is being done with homosexuality.
We have two recent examples where non-existent "threats" were scapegoated for political power: the Jews in Germany and "Communists" during the McCarthy era. And now it's gays.
I'm reminded of the famous poem by Martin Niemoller:
In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists. I did not speak up because I was not a Communist.Then they came for the Jews. I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, but I was not a Trade Unionist, so I did not speak up.
Then they came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I did not speak up.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for anyone.
While we're on the subject of persecution, an argument I've heard from the religious right is that they are being persecuted for their religion. What the right wing won't acknowledge is that it's not their religion that is being challenged, it's their politics.
Bible
As you know, people quote scripture as their basis for disliking homosexuality. You probably know quotes yourself. Since the Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand years, it was written in several languages, embraces many literary forms and reflects cultures very different from ours. These are important considerations for understanding the Bible in its context. There are vast differences in doctrines between various Christian denominations, all of which use the same Bible. Such differences have led some Christians to claim that other Christians are not really Christians at all. Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to church.Bible interpretation and theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. (See the 1904 book The Negro a Beast.) Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did.
Here are some references I've heard used against homosexuality, and how I believe they are correctly interpreted:
Genesis 19:1-25
Some televangelists proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surrounded Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of." It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape.Horrified at this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot attempts to protect the visitors by offering his two daughters to the angry crowd. The people of Sodom refuse, so the angels render them blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.
Several observations are important. First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?
What was the sin of Sodom? Ezekiel 16:48-50 states it clearly: People of Sodom had an abundance of material goods but they failed to meet the needs of the poor and they worshipped idols.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
It is these verses that are used as "proof" that homosexuality is an "abomination" and "detestable" to God.
The Hebrew word variously translated as "abomination" or "detestable" is the same word and simply means ritually unclean. In the context used in the Holiness Code, it referred to practices associated with idol worship, i.e. persons whose religion worshipped a god other than the god of the Hebrews. The practice condemned in the two passages from Leviticus is male prostitution in the temple. (Pagan cults had prostitutes working as members of the temple staff.) It was this practice, rather than loving relationships between persons of the same gender that the Holiness Code condemned. The Hebrew religious leaders had reason to be concerned about this pagan practice. For three hundred years even the temple in Jerusalem had male prostitutes until they were finally once and for all removed. (See Deuteronomy 23:17-18, I Kings 14:24 & 15:12, and II Kings 23:7.)
Yet those who claim "God's Law" condemns gays and lesbians never claim that the hundreds of other provisions of the Holiness Code also apply to Christians.
The rest of the Holiness Code forbids such things as eating shrimp, clams, crawfish, lobster and oysters; eating meat with blood in it; eating pork or rabbit; drinking milk while eating a roast beef sandwich or putting butter on the bread used to make that sandwich; men shaving or cutting their hair; planting tomatoes and carrots in the same garden; having sexual intercourse with one's wife during her menstrual period; a woman from talking in church or going to church during her menstrual period; wearing clothes made from two yarns, such as cotton and polyester, etc.
How can one say these two verses are "God's Law" while completely ignoring all the other hundreds of provisions in "God's Law?" Even if the Hebrew Law condemns homosexuality -- and it does not -- both Jesus and Paul say that Christians are not bound by the Law of the Old Testament, but by the new Law of Love described in the New Testament.
Romans 1:24-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10
Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject.Paul wrote a letter to the Romans (written from Corinth) and another letter he wrote to the people in Corinth. Rome and Corinth were both appropriate targets for someone like Paul who was concerned about morality, especially sexual morality. Both cities were centers of pagan worship which used idols in their worship of gods and goddesses of fertility.
Paul didn't approve of anyone having sex. Convinced that the return of Jesus was imminent, he believed that marriage and reproduction were unnecessary. For Paul, the only excuse for marriage was a man's inability to control his sex drive and remain celibate.
Though Paul was essentially opposed to all sexual activity, the passages from Romans and Corinthians are not condemnations of loving relationships between persons of the same gender. The first reference, Romans 1:26-27, speaks of women exchanging "natural relations for unnatural ones" and "men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another..." These references follow a condemnation (Romans 1:18-23) of persons who don't worship the one God whose Son Jesus had called Paul as an apostle. Paul harshly condemned (Romans 1:23) idol worshippers who worshipped images of gods "made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." The references in verses 26 and 27 are in the context of worship of idols, and speak about male and female prostitution in the pagan temples. The reference has nothing whatsoever to say about loving gay and lesbian relationships.
The second reference is in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which equally condemns idol worshippers, drunks, slanderers, swindlers, thieves, the greedy and people he calls in Greek malakos and arsenokoitai. These words have been translated in many different ways, and scholars can't agree on what Paul meant. Malakos has been translated variously as "people who wear clothes of soft cloth" (like rich people) or "effeminate persons," "Masturbators" or "homosexuals." Based on other usage of this word, the latter translation is the least likely to be accurate. Arsenokoitai is a word, possibly invented by Paul, combining two Greek words for "bed" and "males." An early Greek church leader, John Chrysostom, used this word to mean anal intercourse. Chrysostam assigned different penances for anal intercourse, depending on with whom it was done: one's wife, a woman not one's wife, another man, and so on. The most likely meaning of the word as used by Paul is male prostitutes.
Galatians 5:14
"the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself."Other references
If you'd like to have more detail, some books examining the subject of the Bible and homosexuality include:
- Christianity, Social Tolerance by John Boswell,
- Living in Sin? by Bishop John Spong, and
- Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by Bishop John Spong.
Following are some other interesting points to ponder:
- The Christian churches used to say slavery was OK. The pope in 1993 finally said Galileo was right. If people waited for the churches to say something there would still be slavery and the world would still be flat.
- "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." (Comedienne Lynn Lavner)
- "Beware of false prophets, which come you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. 7:15)
Right-wing groups
Right-wing groups are concerned with power, politics, greed and money. God has to do with only ONE thing - LOVE...pure, unadulterated, unconditional.The IRS is examining the tax-exempt status of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition for one basic reason: It is a political group, not a religious group.
What was your perception of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution? Have you ever noticed the similarities between what happened there and what is happening here? The religious fundamentalist wing (of Islam, in this case) said that the changes going on in their country, such as equal treatment for women, were against the word of their God. They spun up such a frenzy that the people revolted and turned the clocks back, changing their country to a religious-run one. The problem with that is that the fundamentalists claim to have the only correct interpretation of the word of God: Anyone else is a blasphemer and can be put to death. (Remember that Jesus was considered a blasphemer by the religious leaders of his time.) This is an ages-old story: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are other well known examples. The common denominator in all of these is that one group claims to have the sole correct version of what God has told them, but that group is only using it for their own benefit, to the extreme cost of anyone who disagrees with them. The only way for everyone to peacefully coexist is to love people regardless of their differences.
Discrimination
Another thing I've heard is that gay people don't need the protections from discrimination granted to all other citizens because gays are not discriminated against. Here are some examples of discrimination that I can come up with:
- Gays are discriminated against in sickness and in health: Since we are not yet legally allowed to marry, gay spouses only extremely rarely have any of the automatic rights granted to heterosexual spouses. This applies to insurance benefits for the partner, surviving spouse pension benefits, and the tax rate benefits awarded straight couples. Related, gay partners do not automatically have rights of guardianship in case of illness or inheritance rights after death as heterosexual spouses do.
- Sodomy laws are used by homophobes to say that gays are criminals, completely overlooking the fact that sodomy means both oral and anal sex, and there are far more heterosexuals who practice oral sex.
- As you know, OCA-style organizations are pushing constitutional amendments in several states that would prohibit enactment of gay rights laws. The main theme in these campaigns is "No special rights." That sounds benign enough, as if gays were wanting to be treated differently than anyone else. The truth of the matter is that heterosexuals are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, and that gays are merely seeking equal treatment. These amendments are really aimed at legalizing discrimination. Can you think of any other group it is legal to discriminate against? And will these hold up on appeal: Our national Constitution says that all men are created equal. Certainly these amendments attempt to sanction unequal treatment.
- In Kansas, antigay activist Rev. Fred Phelps picketed outside a Salina church May 16 because the church's pastor performed a same-sex commitment ceremony last year. Phelps-style people are the same ones who deride homosexuals by saying we're promiscuous. (And they want to prevent homosexuals from having ceremonies of commitment?! In my wide circle of friends I have many examples of sexually active singles and of monogamous couples. But that applies to both my straight friends and my gay friends. What is truly amazing is that, given there is little societal support for gay relationships, committed relationships are able to happen at all. Indeed, those that criticize gays as promiscuous also seem to be those that do not support gay marriage -- creating a catch 22 for gay people. It seems hypocritical to me.)
Previous part of letter |
Next part of letter 