A can of worms on sexuality....

Allow me to open a can of worms by touching briefly on what is quickly becoming the 3rd Rail of American culture, both within and without of the Church- homosexuality.

<canofworms>

When I was studying counseling a decade ago, one of the more challenging things I was taught and had to grapple with was the idea that sexuality is not as set as we once believed, not concrete. That no one is either 100% homosexual or heterosexual and that we all are on the continuum somewhere between the two poles, and even sometimes experience movement along that continuum during our life.

After initially struggling with this idea,  I came to embrace it- especially as I thought back on the experiences of many folks I had known and their sexual pasts/journeys. 

(Note well what I'm saying and what I'm not saying- I'm not saying sexual behavior is relative. Behavior is a different issue, one where we make choices and exhibit control and should submit to God and His designs. The fact that our sexuality is forged in the confluence of gender and hormones and experience (both good and bad) and needs (both met and unmet) doesn't in any way free us from the obligations we have when we choose to be followers of Jesus to exhibit biblical sexual ethics and behaviors.

Also- In suggesting that same sex sexual behavior is out-of-bounds for followers of Christ, I'm not suggesting that gays and lesbians (or anyone else) should have fewer civil rights- though I would like to see the debate move laterally from "marriage" to something else. See here for a fuller explanation of my thoughts on the issue.)

So the question I had in reading this article this morning which described what I would see as a pretty mainline evangelical view towards homosexuality as "controversial" is this: If the best thinking on sexuality today describes it as somewhat fluid, and it's okay for a therapist to treat someone who, say, feels they have been born the "wrong" gender and would like help in changing, why is it now so controversial or wrong for a therapist to treat someone who says "I've become unhappy with my orientation (for religious or other reasons) and would like help in changing"? 

</canofworms>

 Update: Here's another (and better) take on the issue of society's intolerance of the idea of change in sexuality: A Civil Tolerance

Comments

[Dustin]

oh boy. here goes...

[Zach Lind]

Hey Bob!

As far as your question goes, I don't think there should be anything "controversial" or "wrong" about someone wanting to be treated to change their orientation. I suppose that's their right. But I don't think you're comparing apple to apples here. As homosexuality and gender issues becomes more understood, it seems that our orientation is becoming the primary motivator towards the kinds of sexual relationships we choose. Whenever the primary motivation for our sexual preferences is switched from our biology to some other outside influence (religion, conservative culture, fear of what family and friends might think of us, etc) then I think it's fair that that kind of treatment be met with a little bit more scrutiny and caution. It seems that more and more people are accepting the reality of how sexual orientation works and how it affects our choices. As that trend continues, any kind of treatment away from a person's sexual orientation and towards some outside set of cultural conditions will be met with more suspicion.

My concern with this kind of treatment is that it seems to be acknowledging and attempting to treat a problem that, in my mind, doesn't exist. It's an assumption rooted in a few verses in the Bible. It's telling that treatment centers set up for this kind of therapy are always religiously based. If this kind of treatment was seen as helpful and worthwhile by folks that aren't trying to fit their psychology in a Bible shaped box (maybe the same folks that found that human sexuality is a spectrum rather than an absolute polarity) then maybe this kind of treatment would garner more support, or at least ambivalence, from non-religious folks.

[bobhyatt]

Zach- evolutionary biologists and many sociologists now say that monogamy is "against" our nature. They say we have a biological need to reproduce with as many women as possible. My internal, physical desires confirm that- that is, my desires push against monogamy. Society too is now losing any stigma with having many partners, even while married.
But a few Bible verses and some family pressure (mostly from my wife and kids) push me in the opposite direction.
Which should I listen to?

[bobhyatt]

But my biological imperatives aside... :) The truth is that ALL opinions on this are rooted in worldview and thus "religious." if, as science suggests, sexuality is somewhat flexible, then the question becomes what should guide us in our choices? That has always and will always be the realm of ethics and religion. Your opinion that "the problem doesn't exist" is rooted in a particular worldview/religious ideas. The men and women who are seeking treatment, for whatever reason, would beg to differ. To them, the problem is real- regardless of how they came to that opinion. Like those who believe they have been born in the wrong tendered body, they feel distress and want relief.
Its my opinion that a treatment that IS desired and has helped thousands should not be discounted because of the worldview of people who don't want it OR the psychology of those who have the opposite of a Bible-shaped box- no room for God in their worldview/psychological orientation.

[Zach Lind]

I agree that our opinions are rooted in a worldview that has been shaped by our experience. But I think that's your main problem in opposing same-sex relationships. It seems that when same sex couples are accepted and allowed to enter into relationships, it generally makes their lives more fulfilled and stable. At least with my friends who are gay, this seems to be a running theme. But on the contrary, men or women who are fighting their orientation and trying to "cure" themselves seem to experience a really hard road, many times ending in jumping off a bridge somewhere. Granted, this may not be the case with all people, but in general this is what we're seeing. And I think this point relates to polygamy as well. Yes, there may be some men and women out there who prefer this arrangement but, in general, the human experience of polygamy has overall been a negative one. It doesn't seem to make the lives of everyone involved better. Maybe for the man, but mostly for the women and I think that's why it's been discarded as a normal marital practice. On a side note, where does the Bible explicitly prohibit plural marriage for non church leaders? ;-)

I respect your view and where it comes from. I don't mean to be argumentative or unfair. Thanks for your initial thoughts and interacting with mine!

[Zach Lind]

Whoa, jetlag grammar. Sorry.

[Zach Lind]

Just for kicks, you should check out Andrew Sullivan's book "Virtually Normal". It's the best argument FOR accepting and enabling same-sex marriage that I've come across. Thanks Bob. Hope you are well.