Homosexuality: Nature's Gift to the Religious

 
Human sexuality is as diverse as the number of humans currently existing on the planet.  Part of having such interesting brains as ours makes our personal sexual tastes all the more convoluted and complicated.  At the most base, people either identify as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (identification is also not synonymous with actual sexual activity [1]).  But the fact of the matter is these terms did not exist prior the the 19th century and all of them are submerged in extremely murky water when you begin to examine scientific studies of human sexuality.

The Kinsey Reports, two separate books entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male [2] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female [3], were authored primarily by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy (although there were a team of researchers involved with the study) in 1948 and 1953 respectively.  Groundbreaking in its scope and contents, it is often considered one of the most influential scientific books of the 20th century.  It also created the "Kinsey Scale", currently the most often used scale to rate sexual orientation.  The scale goes from 0 to 6, 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual [6].  Contained within contains the following enlightening quotation regarding human sexual orientation:

The histories which have been available in the present study make it apparent that the heterosexuality or homosexuality of many individuals is not an all-or-none proposition. It is true that there are persons in the population whose histories are exclusively heterosexual, both in regard to their overt experience and in regard to their psychic reactions. And there are individuals in the population whose histories are exclusively homosexual, both in experience and in psychic reactions. But the record also shows that there is a considerable portion of the population whose members have combined, within their individual histories, both homosexual and heterosexual experience and/or psychic responses. There are some whose heterosexual experiences predominate, there are some whose homosexual experiences predominate, there are some who have had quite equal amounts of both types of experience. . . .

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex. . . . [4]

The lines between heterosexual and homosexual are illusionary indeed.  Although the original Kinsey Reports are somewhat dated and there are some modern criticism regarding its data collection methods, the findings are still very justifiable.  People are not easily placed into one identifiable sexual category.  What about a more modern study with perhaps a more rigorous data collection strategy?  Well, there are several.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a FAQ posted on their website with several observations based on empirical evidence:

Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not mental disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings [14].

Another paper entitled Sexual Orientation and Adolescents by Barbara L. Frankowski MD published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004 contains many enlightening quotes on the issue of sexual orientation. 

Homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available.  Societal attitudes toward homosexuality have had a decisive effect on the extent to which individuals have hidden or made known their sexual orientation. 

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.

Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity or sexual behavior (the way one chooses to express one’s sexual feelings). [5]

Another study entitled Patterns of Sexual Arousal in Homosexual, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Men measured self-identified heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men's genital responses to different groupings of erotic videos to measure arousal patterns.

Of primary importance is the question of how best to define, and operationalize, sexual orientation (cf. Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002). We chose to rely on self-identification in this study, as it seems to capture the‘‘gestalt’’of one’s sexual orientation. But as others (e.g., Sell, 1997;Weinbergetal.,1994) have pointed out, self-identification may be influenced by a number of variables and is limited by its categorical nature. The use of the Kinsey scale has also been criticized. As Kinsey et al. (1948) pointed out, there may be discrepancies between one’s sexual history, one’s physical reactions to relevant stimuli, and one’s self-reported sexual orientation [7].

And another study by the American Psychology Association (APA) entitled Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? empirically confirmed the notion that virulent homophobia is associated with repressed homosexuality.

Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies.   A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.' 

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video [8]. 

So what conclusions can we draw from these studies?  First off, the idea of a clear, categorized, life-long classification of sexual orientation is a mirage.  People are not always entirely hetero or homosexual, their choice of orientation does not always match what actually sexually arouses them (mentally or physically), and their choice of orientation and what actually sexually arouses them may change over the course of a lifetime.  Secondly, self-identification and classification is not accurate and very subjective.  Finally, men who are the most outwardly homophobic are often harboring latent internal homosexual arousal patterns. 

What is most interesting, following these findings, is that opposition to homosexuality and homosexual rights comes almost exclusively from the religious.  Are the religious unwittingly hiding their homosexuality underneath a layer of virulent hate speech and religious dogma?  Almost all of the world's major religions condemn homosexuality in their teachings and holy books and while a select few denominations may not consider homosexual sexual acts intrinsically sinful, they are almost universal in their rejection of gay marriage rights.  A notable exception being Hinduism (and that's one notable exception because there are a shitload of Hindus in the world).  I want to focus in on Christianity since it is the most religion prevalent in my country, the United States.

Homosexuality is frequently condemned in the Bible, which serves as many Christian's justification for their condemnation of homosexual activity and their opposition to gay rights, specifically Leviticus chapter 18:

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two Angels visit a man named Lot who is living in Sodom.  Lot's hut is surrounded by Sodomites who want to rape the Angels.  Lot offers his two virginal daughters to the mob as appeasement.  The Angels struck the mob with blindness and bid Lot to leave Sodom with his family immediately.  God then rained fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying the cities and its inhabitants.  The entire unabridged story appears in Genesis 19.

In Deuteronomy chapter 23 there are statements against homosexuality and prostitution:

23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The word "dog" is biblical talk for a homosexual.  In Samuel chapter 20 there is an interesting story of forbidden homosexual love between David and Jonathan:

20:3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. 

20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.

David has found the Lord and Jonathan would be grieved, Jonathan would do ANYTHING for David.  Oh why would that be?

20:11 And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.

Hmmmm, I wonder what they're doing in the field...

20:17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

Saul, Jonathan's father gets upset at this forbidden love and attempts to kill David with a javelin and fails.

20:35 And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him.

20:36 And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And as the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.

20:37 And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee?

20:38 And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.

20:39 But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.

20:40 And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city. 

20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 

20:42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

While there are some liberal denominations that accept homosexuality, I would argue that it would be more in line with Biblical texts to oppose it.  Those who maintain that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality are straining.  Even though it's pretty obvious of what my position is on religion or the Bible, its probably important for me to reiterate it in case there is confusion from my above statement: the Bible is mythology, organized religion is overall detrimental to society, and Christians are suffering from wholesale delusion.

Another facet of Christian homosexual oppression is their homosexual "rehabilitation" programs, psychotherapy and religious indoctrination that attempts to subvert homosexual desires.  There are organizations like http://exodusinternational.org/ which states in their mission statement:

Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality [9].

There are numerous hilarious controversies regarding this organization, including two "ex-gay" members, one of the founders and one of the leaders of Exodus International, leaving the organization to be together [10].
Another one involved another "ex-gay" Chairman of Exodus International who was kicked out of the organization for "exhibiting homosexual tendencies."

There's http://harvestusa.org/.  Their mission statement:

We believe that our sexuality and its expression was designed by God at creation, and that our sexuality and its expression was part of God’s original and good design for mankind, and is clearly communicated to us in the Scriptures. Male and female were both created in God’s image, and we affirm that God’s perfect design for all sexual activity is between one man and one woman in the context of the marriage bond. We recognize that, as a consequence of the Fall, all men and women are sexually broken and thus relate in twisted ways to God, self, others, and nature. Therefore, all expressions of sexual activity outside of the bond of marriage are sinful and are a distortion of God’s good design. This includes all involvement with pornography, sexual fantasy, sexual addictions, adultery, homosexuality, gender distortions and any other sexual activity outside of marriage. All sexual sin grieves God and is offensive to His Holiness, and all sexual sin ultimately harms people, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual sin.

There is an entire subculture of supposed "ex-gays".  Are they really reformed or are they lying to themselves?  Is it even possible to forcefully change sexual preferences?  First off, The American Psychological Association released a study that empirically proved that homosexuals are equally as mentally healthy as heterosexual people:

Hooker's work was the first to empirically test the assumption that gay men were mentally unhealthy and maladjusted. The fact that no differences were found between gay and straight participants sparked more research in this area and began to dismantle the myth that homosexual men and women are inherently unhealthy [11].

If there's nothing to cure, then what purpose do these "ex-gay" support groups and homosexual "rehabilitation" services serve?  Homosexuals are sick almost exclusively in the eyes of the religious and this is certainly not backed by any psychology or current science.  The religious organizations are pushing their religious doctrines onto homosexuals, making them feel guilty for their behavior by telling them that their behavior is somehow sinful and/or not in line with Biblical teachings, and then forming support groups of other oppressed homosexuals to reinforce their persecution.  Another ADA survey, released in 2008 in response to a growing number of these homosexual "rehabilitation" programs, questioned what scientific evidence there was to whether someone's sexuality could be forcefully changed.

APA is concerned about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize homosexuality and promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed and about the resurgence of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). SOCE has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and scientific organizations, on the other (Drescher, 2003; Drescher & Zucker, 2006).

In response to these concerns, APA appointed the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation to review the available research on SOCE and to provide recommendations to the Association. The Task Force reached the following findings.

Recent studies of participants in SOCE identify a population of individuals who experience serious distress related to same sex sexual attractions. Most of these participants are Caucasian males who report that their religion is extremely important to them (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000; Schaeffer, Hyde, Kroencke, McCormick, & Nottebaum, 2000; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002, Spitzer, 2003). These individuals report having pursued a variety of religious and secular efforts intended to help them to change their sexual orientation. To date, the research has not fully addressed age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, disability, language, and socioeconomic status in the population of distressed individuals.

There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area (e.g., Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler, 1971; James, 1978; McConaghy, 1969, 1976; McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr, 1972; Tanner, 1974, 1975) found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Some individuals appeared to learn how to ignore or limit their attractions. However, this was much less likely to be true for people whose sexual attractions were initially limited to people of the same sex.

Although sound data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002).

Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and unpredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Based on the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those outcomes are scientifically unsupported [12].

With the available data we can safely conclude that these programs are not scientifically backed, that sometimes they can do more harm than good, and that they are not necessary from a psychological perceptive (self-identified homosexuals are equally as mentally healthy as heterosexuals when they haven't encountered any religious indoctrination).

Another common argument against homosexual rights is that "it is not natural."  Not only does this subject one to the naturalistic fallacy, but it's also patently untrue.  There are literally thousands of different species of animals that have been recorded participating in homosexual activity.  The list spans across the entire animal kingdom (mammals, fish, insects, invertebrates, amphibians, and birds) [13].  In light of this evidence, it is incorrect to say that homosexuality is unnatural because it occurs in a massive number of natural organisms.  Also, Christians like to say that God created everything, if he did then he surely created a lot of homosexual animals and what does that say about whether God approves of homosexuality if he is a willing creator/condoner of it?  But then again, logic tends to be entirely lost on most Christians (it's always Satan's fault when its something they don't agree with).

Finally, in light of all the evidence, a stance of being against gay marriage or gay rights is indefensible when looked through the lens of science and reality (not through the Bible goggles that Christians wear, "When I look at you I see a divine creation!", to which I retort, "When I look at you I see a bad upbringing, bad reading material, and extraordinarily bad logic").  Opposing gay marriage is morally equal to opposing interracial marriage or inter-caste marriage: it is prejudiced, unwarrantable, and it is an inevitable evolution in the march towards progress that gay marriage will become equal under the law.  Marriage Equality Now!

Sources:
[1] http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf
[2] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47380.Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Male?ac=1
[3] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/130954.Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Female?ac=1
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447861/
[5] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%2522Sexual+orientation+and+adolescents%2522&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#sec-2 
[6] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html
[7] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Cerny%20and%20Janssen%202011.pdf
[8] http://web.archive.org/web/20040202035152/www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
[9] http://exodusinternational.org/about-us/mission-doctrine/
[10] http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=156
[11] http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx
[12] http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx 
[13] http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx 
[14] http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx