The most controversial conclusion Andrew Marin has come to, found in his new book, Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation With the Gay Community
, is the connection in the gay community between personal identity and sexual behavior.Before I attempt to describe his conclusion, I want to mention that I know Andrew is sitting on one of the most complete statistical studies ever done within the gay and lesbian communities. The study remains unpublished to this point, but I will give him the benefit of doubt of operating on the basis of data instead of anecdotal opinion when it comes to identity.
What do you think of his connection of behavior and identity among gays and lesbians?
"Christians," Andrew observes, tend to see three options: "be heterosexual, be celibate or live in sin" (36). And once Christians say these things, it's up to the gay and lesbian person to make his or her choice. Job done.
The theme of this chp works like this: Sexual desire and behaviors are inherent to and important to humans; gays and lesbians have a sexual desire and seek behaviors that are same-sex; therefore, the desires and behaviors are in their identity. The Christian identity, Andrew argues, and Christian behaviors are not always connected -- they are two different things (38). But in the GLBT their sexual desires and behaviors set them apart and therefore define them in a unique way. Therefore, to criticize their behaviors is to criticize who they are (38). Andrew pleads with Christians to recognize this in order to be "with" the GLBT community. Instead of fighting the gay gene vs. environment debate, Andrew argues for presence -- the power of "with."
In this chp Andrew discusses the issue of whether or not abuse is involved in the development of same-sex attraction. Some -- and the numbers are not signficant Andrew says -- choose same-sex behaviors because of abuse. His numbers are 7-15%.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I like the real AND productive discussion going on here. I need some clarification. What does GLBT stand for? Gay and Lesbian _____ _____? What is chp?
I am very interested in what so-called Christians are doing to and saying about what they often term "others" (sadly). I am a mainstream protestant trained in leading seminary-type long-distance classes intended to equip lay persons to support their church leadership and/or to seek licensed ministries of their own.
I was a female adolescent with tendencies toward same sex interests, but never overtly acted on them. I found it confusing and isolating. Of course I also kept these feelings very private--until... I was invited into my pastor's office to talk (in a non-denominational church). He (married with 8 children) proceeded to tear a two-inch phone book in half. I was apparently supposed to be impressed. The pastor opened the topic of sexual interest. I didn't feel I was attractive and was not dating. I had graduated high school, but I told him how I struggled with my eyes always gravitating toward the female body while I was in school. This honest comment resulted in our conversation quickly ending and I left. Within months I discovered he was seducing the single women of the church--including my roommate! Looking back, these frustrating thoughts and my honesty had "saved" me from worse!
I had prayed ferverently for the same-sex thoughts to stop and they did. As an adult, I prayed with those suffering from AIDS one-on-one in a healing service at my (mainstream) home church. While living in a metropolitan area, I was aware of a home-based church meeting the spiritual needs of disenfranchized gays and lesbians led by a ordained woman and her husband (she had also been deeply wounded by the church). I'm also aware of a healing opportunity offered in a mega-church for those seeking 'deliverance' from deep hurts, hang ups, compulsive behaviors, habits, abuse, etc. The minister expected alcoholics, smokers, gamblers, battered wives, etc., to show up. Of all nine people who came, every single one wanted to be free from homosexuality, feeling it was incongruent with their relationship to God.
My two youngest brothers (at age 5 and 6) were molested by a homosexual 'boyfriend' of my oldest sister. The offender later died from AIDS before we knew what he did. One brother grew up to rape his 5-yr-old niece. (This was discovered past the statutes of limitations). The other is celibate and working in a christian ministry organization. Although trained as a youth leader, he refuses to pursue it.
The pain so-called christians have inflicted is appalling. I am frustrated and I am seeking a way to teach my community and classmates a healthy attitude and welcoming rhetoric toward all the imperfect christians (including myself), their imperfect churches and teachings (including mine), homosexuals, and christian homosexuals. Does anyone have recommended reading that might help me with this goal?
Dino-
We may be the last two left on this thread. Your question is greater than any answer anyone could give on it, but instead of leaving it alone, I'll throw out Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian." It doesn't directly do what you're asking, but it does a great job of setting the tone for the conversation you're looking to have.
I haven't read it, but it sounds like the book in question on this thread would help you too.
I'm praying for you, your family and your community.
Grace & Peace.
Dino and Kenton,
Last three!
Dino,
GLBT. B stands for bisexual and T for transgendered. Your chp threw me for a while, but reread Scot's into. Stands for chapter!
Kenton,
While thinking about your question I googled and found that medical model now has many meanings. When I took graduate courses in biology and psychology, medical model refered to the medical paradigm (or bio-medical paradigm) of understanding physical and mental illness based on natural causes versus the old paradigm based on demons as the cause of physical and mental illness. The bio-medical paradigm has much earlier antecedents, but gained momentum starting around 1875 (germ theory) and was becoming mainstream medical understanding before WWI. The advances in medical understanding during the 20th century that broadened the medical model to include mental ilness (and remove homosexuality as a disorder) are fascinating, but beyond this conversation. I writing this in order to show you that it's highly unlikely the medical profession will return to the earlier model or reverse itself on the nature of homosexuality. And to both Erics... Lot's of things about this topic are confusing to us mere mortals! EricS. I'm not the one to comment on how our fallen state affects the understanding of this topic. Both Scot and RJS have blogged on this in the past. I'm sure though that fallen state refers to all of us and not just a "them." Scot will review another chp soon, so maybe we can continue then.
Doug
Doug-
It was purely a hypothetical, buddy. I wasn't suggesting that the positions would be reversed - I'm sure never will, only that the profession making the claim doesn't have some absolute authority in making it. My background is electrical engineering. One of the things my training allows me to see quickly is how things passed as scientific too often lack adequate control. And medicine is as much an art form as it is a science. (My doctors don't "engineer" medicine, they "practice" it.)
But the point of this series is getting past our "for" and "against", is it not? It's getting past the science, and not getting worked up about which side the science is on. Some of us need to move past the "homosexuals are as mentally ill (and the mental health profession is nuts)" rhetoric ("against"), and others need to move past the "homosexuals are perfectly normal" rhetoric ("for"), and everyone needs to move to the "My [friends/family members] are gay, now what?" rhetoric ("with").
doperback,
I'm not sure I understand your position. One the one hand you freely admit that Paul had a limited understanding of the biological underpinning of certain aspects of human nature, and yet you want to say that the vice lists he describes are nevertheless still fully in force?
I'm not sure how you get here. Generally your previous JC comments suggest you have a pretty nuanced view of scripture. So I'm not sure I get your "if it says it, it still applies" principle, regardless of later developments in the understanding of human nature. Care to clarify?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.