"Fundamentalism"

Before I respond to each point in turn, I'll give you a bit of background on the events surrounding the article on which you spent much of your time. Scott was perhaps unaware that Grant had read all of Scott's site at time of the original email, not just one article In the previous paper, the editors had printed a column calling for the acceptance of homosexuality and stated that it was good for society without offering proof. actually this is not correct. The previous article Scott refers to pointed that the burden of proof lay with those who would restrict the rights of gay men and women and not with those gays asking to be treated equally. Scott takes the common anti-gay line that starting from an initial position of equality is somehow pro-gay (or even anti-heterosexual) when in fact it is the truly neutral position and is where the debate should start I was a bit younger, and newer to public discourse (that was my very first column for the paper.) so I saw no problem with making a contrary statement without proof, as they had presented none. In retrospect, I would have said a good many things differently, but the article is presented as printed. Truth be told, I have heard many of the criticisms you have presented, but I will address them again. The main goal of the article was not to show how homosexuality is bad for society, but rather to criticize the arguments put forth by the previous column. Scott is trying to narrow down the discussion here, and is not addressing Grant's original question about Scott's anti-gay attitudes expressed throughout his website

1. Please do not extend the argument farther than it was intended. I was merely pointing out that people make choices that have negative consequences. the very point of which Grant was ultimately making to Scott, in his case negative for others rather than for oneself The previous column from the editors had said that no one would make a choice that affected their lives in such a negative way, therefore homosexuality must be genetic We like Bishop Tutu's comment about this "There are some who have said that it is a choice. If this is the case, then homosexuals must be the craziest coots on Earth!". That is not true, people make choices everyday that affect their live badly, like murder, etc. I was not, in any way, intending to say that homosexuals deserved to be classified with murders and the like. you will nevertheless note that Scott continues to draw throughout his emails these same comparisons between being gay and such violent crimes against unwilling others, despite his also continually saying he does not equate them. Scott should perhaps recall the psych. game called "Word Association" and ask if it applies to him in this case The argument was only that people do make choices that have negative consequences.

   However, on a God scale, there is no difference between sin. All sin is the same. So to say that homosexuality is the same as murder would be accurate, but so would saying murder is equal to gossip. Sin is sin to God. (premarital sex= homosexuality= gossip= hate for people= lying). Humans place levels on it. and on this Scott appears guilty - his articles concentrate on homosexuality with little to say about the far more common 'sins'. Why he, and other fundamentalists, concentrate on gays is a question that provides insightful answers to questions about their World views and their prejudices rather than their concerns about 'sin'
   
   (On a side note, I know that no one wakes up in the morning and says, "I think I'll be gay." If homosexuality is not genetic, then it is a long process of events that vary from individual to individual that brings them to that orientation.)

2. First, it has been shown that some people who suffer from alcoholism have a gene that predisposes them to be addicted to it note that Scott unreservedly accepts that a gene for alcoholism exists, despite the evidence for it being only as strong as there is for a gay gene. Not all alcoholics have this gene, and not all people who drink are alcoholics. (Oh, and you don't have to be at a party to be an alcoholic or a homosexual.) Really Scott?...

   As for the rest, again, do not take the argument farther than intended in debating this is a common ploy, and the speaker really means "do not take my opinions too far because they fall down". The argument put forth is that homosexuality is genetic, therefore it is good. The implied premise is that all things that are genetic are good. If that is not the case, then the argument is logically flawed. This is the argument in the form of a formal logic syllogism:

   
   P1: Homosexuality is genetic
   P2: All things genetic are good
   Conclusion: Homosexuality is good.
   
   again, the original article did not draw this type of logic - nor is it the logic used by most of those fighting anti-gay attitudes by reference to genetics. It really goes more like:
   
   P1: Homosexuality is genetic
   P2: All things genetic are natural
   Conclusion: Homosexuality is natural and should be treated as such (ie. do not tell us homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore something to be resisted)
   

   
   Leaving aside the fact that the research which gave implications that sexual orientation was genetic has come under heavy, and accurate, criticism from the scientific community (Apparently some subjects were left out of the experimental records and the results would have been different.) Those familiar with the research - and not just with what the Religious Right has said about the work - will be aware that the researchers have all said the results indicate a possible genetic component. They did not say their work proved anything, merely that a linkage appeared possible. The work has been subject to the normal peer review (as well as the abnormal political attack) and this review process will further refine the studies. The researchers themselves are quite prepared to subject themselves to the peer review process - the very fact they published their findings and their methodology openly suggests academic honesty. Nevertheless, Scott seems prepared to dismiss the studies about sexuality and accept the studies on alcoholism when in reality the scientific basis for either are the same, let us assume that P1 is true.

   Now we come to the second premise. For the sake of argument, let us assume that P2 is really true. That means that all things genetic, including genes that predispose people to alcoholism, are good. Yet that is not the way we think. We have made a moral decision about alcoholism, and expect people to resist those genetic desires. This does not mean we write off anyone who gives into those desires, but rather, we try to help them to resist. Scott assumes here that people resist alcoholism on moral grounds, rather than the more common health grounds - this again says more about Scott's particular strain of religion than wider society's response to alcoholism
   
   Before you protest and say that P2 should not be a universal affirmative premise, realize that to phrase it like " Some things that are genetic are good" would leave the argument suffering from the logic fallacy of the undistributed middle. In order to prove the syllogism (P1: Homosexuality is genetic. P2: Some things that are genetic are good. Conclusion: homosexuality is good.) new premises would have to be added, pertaining to the nature of homosexuality and how it is able to be classified as a good genetic thing.

   That was precisely my argument. We do not hold everything genetic to be inherently good. We cannot simply say that homosexuality is genetic, therefore it is good. We must discuss whether it is bad or good. If we show that it is entirely genetic and is such a strong desire that no one can resist it, without discussing whether it is good, cures for homosexuality may be sought just as cures for Cerebral Palsy are. While that may be a terrible thought for you, without discussion of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, people would be justified in doing just such research. Of course, a Scientific approach would say research for the sake of knowledge is justification enough, without a need to decide if something is "good" or "bad"

3. I must disagree with you. Sexual orientation is a behavior defined state. Interestingly, people who are bisexual but who 'resist' same-gender attractions because of internalised homophobia are the most likely to believe this. Fully heterosexual and fully homosexual people tend not to see sexuality as a choice (particularly if you take the question "And when did you decide to become a heterosexual?" to it's logical conclusion with them). This is not a direct comment about Scott, but it may say a great deal about those who produce the anti-gay tracts he draws on
   
   A man who is born blind has the possibility of never having a cognitive knowledge of his skin color we are hoping that Scott is not prejudiced towards these people as well, but people who are blind are also capable of knowing that something called skin colour exists (just as they are about the colour of their clothing etc)- they just do not sense it visually. It may help Scott's understanding to think of sexuality in these terms as well - being a heterosexual (or homosexual) need not preclude understanding of the feelings of others with a different awareness. However, skin color is a state of being demographic. Even if he never knows what color his skin is, his skin is that color. On the other hand, sexual orientation is not a state of being demographic. It is behavior defined. it is defined this way only by the Religious Right You cannot say that a person looks non heterosexual. People are of a particular sexual orientation because they think, desire, or act in a particular way which defines them as belonging to such a demographic. Sexual orientation, by definition, has to do with cognitive aspects of our existence. and this comment after Scott said sexual orientation also involved thinking about it; he really needs to understand what cognitive means instead of just throwing around Psych. 101 terms to make his opinions sound more expert. In reality, Scott must define homosexuality in this way or else he would be forced to concede homosexuality is an inherent part of the individual. Further, if Scott followed true to form he would more than likely turn this opinion on it's head and say heterosexuality was not merely "behaviour"
   
   Until a person has a thought, a desire, of a sexual nature, that person is not of a particular orientation. Before you protest about how genes predispose you to certain things, let's talk about alcoholism again. I have a dear friend who has the gene that predisposes her to be an alcoholic. She has never touched a drop of alcohol, so she is not an alcoholic. Does she have the inherent addiction within her? Yes. Has she ever desired to drink? Yes. Yet, she never has, and is not an alcoholic. again, it appears the members of Scott's merry band accept without doubt the existence of a gene for alcoholism. The evidence is also that the penetration of the gay gene is stronger than that of alcoholism - and Scott's use of this analogy falls down at this point. We would both be interested in knowing just how Scott's friend has established she has this alcoholism gene and that it's penetration on her is strong. Properly done this is an involved and rather expensive process and seems a bizarre way to go about deciding whether you should try alcohol in your youth. Scott, please supply details about where your friend had the work done, by whom and the methodology they used otherwise we can only assume you are embellishing your opinions with a fantastic story. Further, if she cared to go to the expense she will probably find herself as genetically predisposed to all manner of things to greater or lesser degrees and this seems a hollow way to "map out" one's life
   
   If we assume that homosexuality is genetic, we know that a person has sexual images forced upon them through various media in our respective societies, so there is no choice about whether we will interact with sexual thoughts, lest we shelter ourselves away from the world. So, our orientations we are predisposed toward (again, assuming) are stimulated and we are on our way toward an orientation.curiously Scott seems to be quite unaware that all the imagery Dale and Grant (and every other gay man or woman) grew up surrounded by was heterosexual in nature. We certainly didn't become gay because of the media
   
   Still, does that mean we are totally determined to be that orientation? No. Go to point 4 to see examples of people who were once gay, but are now straight. Every person who was ever heterosexual but are now non heterosexual has changed their orientation this is an opening to the common and apparently false belief from fundamentalists that heterosexuality is the only normal orientation and everything else is a deviation from it. Now, whether or not they changed it to the one they were predisposed to (assuming) is another debate. actually no, this is central to the discussion The fact is, they acted in one way, and now act in another. They thought of themselves in one way, and now think in another. The very fact that there are varying degrees of sexual orientation supports think of it as a behavior defining desire, as opposed to a two way (or three way) switch. The question lies in whether we are controlled by our desires, or if we control them. a better question would be why the Religious Right has rather different views on how much control should be exerted by heterosexuals and homosexuals over their sexuality; one is asked to merely channel their desires, the other is asked to completely deny them. This runs to the heart of the debate about toleration and acceptance of homosexuality and the debate about bigotry

4. Your information about recovering homosexuals is wrong. I will provide you with a web site filled with the testimonies of people who were once homosexual (not bisexual) and are now happily living heterosexual lives: ( http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/menus/index.html is the address for Stonewall Revisited)Scott is wrong. This site bought to you by the odd people at Exodus contains testimonies from what nearly every expert would consider to be bisexuals. The few that one could consider as gay have all declared themselves to be now celibate (whether they are in fact celibate and how long they remain so is a moot point and one at which Exodus conspicuously fails given the reports of 'ex-ex-gays' who tell tales of rampant, guilt-ridden and anonymous sex at the various prayer retreats run by the group). Note that Exodus considers this failure to make one difference to the person's underlying sexual orientation to be a successful 'ex-gay'! It is worth keeping uppermost in your mind that Exodus is run primarily by and for fundamentalist heterosexuals and consists of basically a few hundred guilt-ridden gays and bisexuals and about the same number of anti-gay heterosexuals - numbers which are dwarfed by the millions of happily and openly gay men and women and the many more millions of closeted gays.
   
   Do you presume to tell another person what his or her sexual orientation is? How can you do that? "Since you can be married to the opposite sex, but have been in homosexual relationships in the past, you are a bisexual." How, pray tell, do you know that? The fact is, you have to define it that way, otherwise your whole perspective on sexual orientation would come crumbling down. For you, there can never be a way for a person change their orientation, unless you change your belief structure. At this point it is Scott who is indeed presuming what Grant would say, and Scott is again wrong. Grant's definition is the rather simple to understand one used by the professionals - exclusively (or near enough) same-sex attraction = gay, exclusively (or near enough) opposite-sex attraction = straight, everyone else = bisexual. Scott's definition seems based on the the one adopted by the Religious Right - anyone who fantasizes about or engages in same-sex sex activity = gay (or more commonly "homosexual"), everyone else = heterosexual. This is a convenient way for the Religious Right to claim homosexuality is a choice and for them to count bisexuals engaging only heterosexually to be 'cured'. Going into or out of marriage is not a good way to determine sexual orientation, particularly if the couple claim to believe in celibacy before marriage and don't have to "prove" themselves beforehand or if one of the couple is bisexual
   
   I wonder what you would say if I, a person who has had many heterosexual relationships (celibate), came out of the closet. Would I be a man who has finally admitted my orientation to myself and the world, or a bisexual? that would depend entirely on your degree of homosexual/heterosexual attractions Seems like a double standard to say that such a thing would be someone finally realizing their orientation if they reveal they are gay, but are bisexual if the reveal that they are heterosexual. Is it not within the realm of possibility that there are people who live as homosexuals who have heterosexual orientations? Well yes of course this is possible. Not only that but Grant is well aware that many homosexuals are more bisexual than they are prepared to admit publicly. No great leap of understanding there, this applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals I know that you would say that the reverse is true, that homosexuals live as heterosexuals. Is it not also within the realm of possibility that sexual orientation can be changed? It would be ignorant in 1997 to consider it possible to change orientation given the extensive research now available on the matter. Even given their roots in the heterosexism of Freud and others some 100 years ago none of the professional bodies now believe change is possible - not because of a political campaign by gay activists (which is as a number of homophobes in the profession with threatened practices would have you believe) but because the early hypotheses simply failed in practice. Read what the major professional body has to say on the matter.

   (Note: the APA has some 150,000 members in comparison to the 700 or so members of NARTH - the fundamentalist Christian based organisation of professionals and non-professionals which continues to argue change in sexual orientation is not only possible but desirable. NARTH was formed in 1992 and it's foundation and operation appears connected more to the political campaigns of the Religious Right than it does to professional psych. treatment. While NARTH's politics are modern, it's ideas about "cures" are clinically-based and some 30 years out of date)

   Should the evidence surface, Grant would accept it but the evidence is that sexual orientation does not change (even if sexual desire waxes and wanes throughout a person's life).
   
   That brings up the debate of nature versus nurture. There is much evidence on both sides. Some people hold that we are totally predetermined from birth, while others say we are "blank slates" and learn everything. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. I personally think that we have certain attributes that help shape our personality and identity, but we are not wholly determined, even by those, as we can neglect them, and focus on other things in our life.Scott's view on this matter is not incompatible with the idea that one is born gay and that socialisation determines how one deals with this in-built orientation - be it by openness and acceptance, or internalised homophobia I know many people who have wonderful intellects that are neglected as they move through their somewhat dreary life. But, I digress.

   There is not enough evidence to say that no one can change their sexual orientation. We assume Scott means apart from the hundreds of years worth of trying by the medical and religious professions There is contrary evidence to support a belief that you change. Scott is welcome to provide this evidence, neither we or the professionals have seen it Did you know that it is only small minority (less than 20% I have heard from some sources, less than 10% from others) that claim to have been born homosexual? Again, we have no idea where Scott got these figures from. Every figure we have seen has 80%+ saying they believe they were 'born that way' with the rest either saying it happens due to a combination of genetics and early childhood (as in under 3 years old) or that they simply do not know I imagine that the issue of sexual orientation's genetic origins will fade rather quickly, because the initial argument was flawed, as I have shown in point 3. Scott showed nothing and simply gave us his opinion based on a definition not used by the experts. But he is in agreement with most gay men and women about hoping for "the issue" to fade quickly - we too hope that in very few years people will not care about whether someone is gay or whether it is genetic or choice or whatever.
   
   

5. There is hope.

   As you have seen from the previously mentioned homepage, people can become heterosexual, and live happily married lives. In those cases, there is one unifying factor, Jesus Christ. Everyone needs to have their life changed by him. He changed mine, he can change your, or anyone's. Thankyou Scott but neither Dale or Grant feel they need to have their life changed by your version of Jesus Christ, particularly if it meant giving up what we have together as a couple. But thankyou also for clarifying exactly where your chain of thought comes from and displaying your sectarian absolutism
   
   You see, those guys who carry signs that say "God Hates Fags" are so wrong! God loves everyone, and desires that everyone would come to know him through his son, the mediator between God and Man. There is no difference between you and I. There is no difference between a homosexual man and I. Not in what matters. We are all in the same boat, sinners in need of a savior. There is of course a major difference. His choice of religious lifestyle does not, of course, ask of Scott anymore than that he curbs some aspects of his personal relationships. Scott can still look forward to finding a compatible partner to love and share his life with. Scott feels gay men and women should never be fulfilled in this way. For those of our readers unfamiliar with the particular type of Christian bigot Scott refers to you are invited to check out the website of Rev. Phelps who you will note is just as sure of his correctness as Scott is - "God hates Fags" or "God hates what Fags do" is divided by a fine line
   
   I cannot say for you what your spiritual state is, but can testify about my own. I am a sinner saved by grace through faith in Christ, and my joy comes from an eternal hope in Glory. That is something you can have right now. Go to this address to find out more: http://geocities.datacellar.net/Heartland/2531/happy.html We did. Nothing happened, so feel free to check out the link without fear
   
   I will not say that with God, a person's orientation will change overnight. It didn't develop overnight, so I doubt it would be anything other than a long process. Yet, we are promised that all things are possible and that we can do all things with God, who gives us strength.

   God's will is a hard thing to identify, hmmm, yet Scott seems so sure of himself about homosexuality and God's will... but it is a worthy pursuit. If it is God's will, a person may change in an instant. And let us guess; if change doesn't occur it's not because God isn't all powerful but just because he doesn't want it to happen or because the person involved is still not a true believer...how convenient, and something that makes your 'theory' untestable and therefore redundant If it is God's will, a person may struggle with a sin for a lifetime. You see, God knows we will sin again and again. He knows we have tasted the instant gratification that sin provides, and that our flesh is molded to those desires. We are all born with desires of the flesh, selfish things we want fulfilled.does Scott not realise that Grant and Dale's love is no more selfish than that between a man and a woman? Part of the commitment to him is to deny those desires, and struggle against sin. It is the struggle against sin that honors God. It is the struggle that marks a man who has a relationship with Christ. The ironic thing, in the midst of that struggle, there is a peace that comes from God. It is a peace that comes in all areas of life, from the stormiest sea and the calmest water. I pray everyone would know it.hard as it may be for Scott to appreciate, but that inner peace is indeed within Grant and Dale - now we have largely got over the homophobia we had absorbed during our childhood and adolescence
   
   Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions. We are all responsible for what we say, do, or feel.a comment going to the heart of the question Grant posed Scott at the beginning You cannot blame the depression and suicide of non heterosexuals entirely on heterosexuals. I could just as easily pass some blame on to the various homosexual support groups for not fulfilling their purpose better, and allowing these people to believe as they do.fine then, we assume Scott will push to enable these groups to enter the lives of all children at an early enough age to allow this to occur - trying to counter internalised homophobia in a gay teenager who's run away from an anti-gay household is too late. In practice, everyone from neutral teachers to gay support groups continually find themselves blocked by small numbers of Christian fundamentalists who utterly refuse to allow school-based discussion of homosexuality in other than disparaging terms No, I do not accept the blame for the mental state of other people. I speak truth, in love, as I know it. I listen to others, and evaluate my position. (On the other hand, I have read some articles which suggest that the attribution of so many suicides to sexual orientation is an exaggeration, and based on shoddy, unscientific, statistically flawed evidence.)this would have to rate as Scott's lowest comment. It is in keeping with the attitude of the Religious Right who know that this very real suicide rate can only be reduced by giving open and full information about homosexuality to pre-adolescents - something they just refuse to allow
   
   

6. I do think that all people have a need for affection. However, that does not excuse our actions. Should I look for this affection in the arms of a prostitute? Or in the bed of a small child? The claim that we have a need for affection does not excuse every sexual action.and again Scott falls back on the same old nasty comparisons...
   
   Besides, this need for affection is not a sexual drive in any way. It is not a primarily physical drive. A hug from a platonic friend can fill it. It can be filled by a romantic companion, but that is not a necessary component. The acceptance needed by social creatures can come from friends, family, and /or mates. If the desire must be filled by a romantic partner, then those who never have a romantic involvement can never have it filled. Children can never have it filled.Children, by definition, do not need sexual partners (and let's not beat around the bush - it's sexual not romantic partner we are talking about) Priests, and the like, can never have it filled.but of course we are talking about a true choice here (and we hope Scott is well aware of the number of priests who fled to this particular closet as a way of avoiding or hiding their gay sexual orientations - we have seen estimates of anywhere from 25% to 40% of Roman Catholic priests being gay and the revelations and legal settlements in recent years for both heterosexual and homosexual child sexual abuse within the Church would suggest that enforced celibacy is a very poor way of dealing with sexuality) However, many people without romantic partners do have their need for affection fulfilled everyday in other relationships.so why do so many single people claim to be 'empty' and 'lonely' without that special someone in their life, regardless of how large their social network is?

   What would Scott's response be if Grant and Dale decided we were never going to have sex with each other (or anyone) again, but that we would nevertheless continue to live together as an exclusive "couple". We could share the same bed, but that would of course only be for warmth/affection and involve no sex or sexual feelings. We would continue to share finances, holidays, dreams and ambitions. We would go everywhere and do everything as a typical married couple would. We would continue to love one another, just not show it in some ways. Is this arrangement OK by Scott? How should our desire to care for each other and share our lives be treated under the law? Would Grant and Dale still be gay? And how would the outside World regard us? Such a case shows up the absurdity of Scott's use of a definition of "homosexuality" based on sexual activity alone
   
   

7. I have to admit, that is a new one. I had never heard that before.Really? Grant's point is hardly original and has been used for years to convince people that they should avoid making inflammatory political, racial or religious remarks because such behaviour does end up with someone getting physically hurt. Maybe Scott has never had it put to him, but that does not make it a 'new one'
   
   I do think there is a link between some pornography (specifically anything showing women in submissive and violent situations in which they appear to enjoy being raped, beaten, etc.) and violence acted out on women. I would admit that there could be a link exist from something that said that gays liked to be beaten, and harassed, etc. and people acting out those things. That is the only analogy that holds up. There is nothing in my writings that would even remotely imply that non heterosexuals enjoy being beaten and harassed.

   So, your argument that my writings could induce someone to bash a gay man is a weak analogy. If you had read almost any of my other pieces on homosexuality you could not help but notice a public denouncement of such actions. Even in the main article upon which you focused, there is a call to love people, even if you hate what they do.

   To say that my view of the non heterosexual lifestyle can, in and of itself, prompt someone to break the law and harm another human being, is absurd. We would be the first to admit that getting Scott to immediately accept this is a long shot; such a admission would strike at the very heart of Scott's chosen identity as a fundamentalist Christian called to witness his faith (ie. to try and recruit others). Rather, it would not be unusual for someone such as Scott to cut himself off from all challenging information rather than deal with reality. We would suggest that this process of denial is perhaps the major reason fundamentalist Christians do not want homosexuality to be discussed fully or for gays to be open about their sexuality and why, for example, Scott has limited his research to "safe" Christian sites and readings. Grant has no such qualms about reading anything or speaking to anyone!