by John Pacheco
There are few things in this world that anger me more than people who distort and pervert the teachings and love of Jesus Christ. Terry Bridges' letter "Homophobia saddening" (Dec. 3, 1991) suggests that a Christian should accept homosexuality as a way of life. Mr. Bridges seems to hold a saturated view of Christianity since he describes those who oppose homosexuality as holding "distorted" views of Christianity.
I intend to use simple reason to dispel the myths that have been propagated by Mr. Bridges. I will also analyze the homosexual tendency from a scientific framework, thus avoid the mindless and useless rhetoric that usually accompanies such debates.
A "Christian" is a person who accepts Jesus Christ as his Saviour, accepts the teachings of Christ, and tries to live by them. He is most certainly not a person who tolerates all behaviours - sexual or otherwise. A rational atheist should be able to read the Gospels, and conclude that homosexuality is simply inconsistent with Christ's teachings - one does not have to be a Christian to draw this conclusion. After reading any of the Gospels in their context, it is indeed quite remarkable how any rational, competent individual can conclude that Christ accepts homosexuality. Christ does not even accept heterosexual promiscuity: "For from the heart come evil intentions: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, slander. These are the things that make a man unclean." (Matthew 15:19-20) Other similar issues He teaches us about include the dangers of lust and pleasures of the flesh. Instead of accusing Reverend James of perverting Christianity, I suggest, sir, that you educate yourself: pick up a bible, open your mind, open your heart, and read a Gospel. After reading it, I think you will see my point.
My second point concerns the issue of homosexuality itself. Because I will inevitably be accused of being a closed-minded, prejudiced, unenlightened, homophobic perpetrator of civil liberties, I will simply provide you, Mr. Bridges, with some research that has been conducted in this field.
Bell & Weisenberg (1978) documented higher rates of depression and loneliness, as well as "more paranoia and psychosomatic symptoms" among the homosexual population. Furthermore, 18% of white homosexual males reported attempting suicide at least once, compared to a rate of 3% among heterosexual respondents. In addition, 79% of white homosexual males reported that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers. Moreover, Bergin (1988) reported that 57% of surveyed mental health professionals agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that having a "preference for a heterosexual sex relationship" was an important criteria for mental health.
One may ask, however, "Is a homosexual orientation caused by factors beyond a person's voluntary control?" John Money (1980) suggests that "the sex chromosomes do not directly determine or program psychosexual status as heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual". In 1987, Money concluded quite explicitly: "there is no human evidence that prenatal hormonalization alone, independently of postnatal history, inexorably preordains [homosexuality]." Furthermore, according to Bieber (1976), "In every case that I have studied, examined, or treated, homosexuality was the consequence of serious disturbances during childhood development...A boy may have a father who is distant, cold, unavailable, or rejecting, and a mother who is overly warm, smothering and controlling." Similar studies have been found with lesbians.
There is also a claim by many "enlightened" individuals that change is impossible for the homosexual. This is false. According to Bieber (1976), there is a 33% success rate for those who were committed to change their ways. Moreover, Masters & Johnson (1979) reported a 50-60% cure or improvement rate for highly motivated clients, while Socarides (1978) reported a success rate in achieving full heterosexual functioning of almost 50%. Moreover, it seems quite palatable in our sexually heightened society to assert that sexual gratification is somehow essential to human happiness. Yet there has been no evidence to suggest this. None of the major theories in academic psychology assert that the expression of genital erotic urges is essential to human well-being.
The purpose of sharing this research is to give the other side of the argument on this issue, which unfortunately has been offered too infrequently. Having said that I now turn to something which is acutely annoying. It is the direct and subtle underlying foundation behind the homosexual movement: "If you do not accept us, you hate us." I do not hate anyone. I am not a bigot (It is against my religion). I am not a "gay-basher". I vehemently oppose violence against anyone - straight or gay - the answer lies in argument and reason and not violence. Proponents of this new sexual ethic must shed the mental poverty of irresponsibly accusing someone of hate, when it is the sin that is hated and not the sinner.
I end my piece with a response to Mr. Bridges' question: "Have you ever been adversely affected by the 'homosexual lifestyle'?" My response is no - not yet, but I suspect that this will eventually change. The following is an excerpt from the Queen's Journal (June 25, 1991):
It is time that the massive problem of heterosexual relations in our culture was generally confronted. Women have always been oppressed but now they know they are oppressed; the traditional relationships that support our society such as monogamy and family have always depended on the subordination of women. The necessity to demolish and rethink those relationships becomes increasingly urgent as the century continues.
Indeed, Mr. Bridges - who is attacking whom?
Originally published as a Letter
to the Editor to the Kingston Whig Standard, January 23,