post-traumatic homo disorder

Correlating homosexuality and childhood abuse or rape furthers antigay rhetoric popularized by conservative and Christian think-tanks. Consider the societal impact of such sentiment. Let me preface these by stating that I understand that you may not subscribe to the following viewpoints; they are nonetheless common among your circle.

To assume that homosexuality results from trauma (such as rape or abuse) contributes to the notion that homosexuality is a classifiable mental disorder. Such condensation toward homosexual lifestyle places yet another obstacle in their pursuit of societal acceptance. Rather than accepting homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexuality, this view emphases the possibility of a “cure” to their handicapped, troubled mental health.

More than emphasizing the need for a cure, this view subjects homosexuals to the limitations that befall other mentally troubled individuals. Someone with post traumatic stress syndrome expressed via homosexuality, cannot, for example, be expected to adequately and/or safely care for an adopted child, lead a boy scout troupe, etc.

The push to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder is ongoing. Since the American Psychiatric Association and other authorities on mental disabilities removed homosexuality from its roster, homophobic institutions have utilized evermore creative schemes to revamp the myth. The attempt to link trauma with homosexuality is a more recent iteration of that effort.

In a more perfect world, one would not perceive relative differences in the normalcy or moral superiority of various sexual orientations. Thus, in a more perfect world, the nature/nurture argument would be irrelevant. Alas, we live far digressed from a perfect world. I have already alluded to this point, but there exists incredible fear in our society that something can “cause” gay.

As President Bush would say (regarding just about anything progressive), “not all the science is in.” Nevertheless, I can not find a single source (other than Christian or “family values” websites) that suggest a correlation between nurture (including trauma and twin studies) and homosexuality. you can undoubtedly fathom the damage that furthering a “such-and-such causes homosexuality” statement does to the civil liberties of homosexuals. When such damaging claims moreover have dubious origin, that is unacceptable.


I am not sure where you heard the myth correlating rape and homosexuality, but I find it sad that you did. I feel this way not just because of the injustices it perpetuates, but because such misinformation spreads so easily, so relentlessly. Regardless of who the messenger was or the information available to them, they have no excuse. As a supposed authority, that person has a moral responsibility to (1) relate information accurately, and (2) understand the societal impact of their message. This duty transcends all titles-- whether they be your peer, teacher, preacher, or parent.

continuing on moral relativism

To call the Judeo-Christian code of ethics Christianity’s white elephant does not duly articulate its uselessness. Its veneration throughout the Western World, both remarkable and tragic, persists unchecked and without reason. The code employs zero constituents, not for its impossible standards or the flaws of humankind, but for its irrelevance to routine moral dilemma. Let me explain.

Judeo-Christian ethics lives in a box wherein dilemma unfold simply and out of context. You’re in a box, knife in your hand, facing a nameless other. Do you kill or not kill? You don’t kill-- wonderful. You’re in a box, a nameless other asks your name. Do you lie or not lie? You don’t lie-- two for two; this is great. Now consider a more demanding example.

You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other. He insists, “Pick a number, one or two.” You pick two. “I’ll slit my throat if you chose two. What did you choose?” You no doubt lie, answering “one” to save his life. Let me make myself clear: you conclude that the relative appropriateness of lying hinges on the details governing the situation. Once again, consider a more demanding example.

You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll kill the child at mine.” You say “no” and his child suffers the slow anguish of maniacal exuberance. And once more. You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll dice the 1 million children at mine, and the one at yours.”

It was horrid, but you killed a child that day and saved a million more. In case you’re scheming, let me establish an additional constraint. As the dead child lay at your side, the nameless man says, “You repent your sin, in your prayers or in your heart, and I will shred these kids apart.” You comply; you live; and later you die. Are you burning for all eternity in the depths of Hell? No. Just as before, you recognize that the relative appropriateness of murder hinges on the details governing the situation. Likewise, you expect that God, with His infinite mercy and benevolence, shares your sentiment.

Granted, the box scenario’s a sham, but it highlights an important and inescapable limitation of Judeo-Christian ethics: such ethics only apply to simple, one-dimensional scenarios, free of controversy and free of moral doubt. When faced with a defining moment-- that is, a scenario whose varied solutions each require a wrong and each prevent a right-- Judeo-Christian ethics provide no guidance. The reason you assume your salvation following the last example is because you assume God acts pragmatically, that for the case presented He empathizes with your decision to murder or at least recognizes your intention to glorify Him. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral relativism.

Next, reconsider the final moral dilemma. All else constant, this time the nameless man threatens fewer than 1 million children. Perhaps he garners 5000 children, or 42 children, or 3 children, or whatever number of children between 1 and 1 million for sacrifice. How many children must the nameless man assemble to justify your murdering just the one? I expect there exists a range of numbers of children in which you become ethically torn. And your range might differ drastically from others’. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral ambiguity. Even if you redirect your moral quandary to God, you must recognize that in order to provide guidance, God must act pragmatically (that is, in a morally relativistic manner).

While the previous examples were concocted for the sake of argument, I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter conform to this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong Judeo-Christian ethics do not suffice. Moral relativism or ambiguity arises not from evil, corruptness, or a discomfort in “claiming that someone else is wrong,” but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. Examine the decisions of your life ranging from the most challenging to the most mundane. You’ll find that some degree of pragmatism (that is, moral relativism) was evoked; it is necessary for survival.

your rationalization reveals your soul

You’ve seen this clown-- the half evangelical, half circus act that plants himself around universities, city centers, or wherever else the scent of sin settles into a thick dew and secularism endures almost as well as was intended by our Founding Fathers. He squats a local grassy mound, hill, stage, knoll, or whatever other vantage allows him to yell and yell and be heard all the while manically waving his Bible like a wand that just might, with the grace of God, render these troubled iPod adorned souls spellbound. Let’s call our esteemed patron of the Lord Fred, the graced, the pious, the blessed, the sacred warrior.

Few listen to Fred, and probably zero sequentially credit his sermon for the sudden overpowering presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. And I think I understand why. Fred does not preach subtly. This might be our fault: it’s rather hard to grab the attention of godless fiends without a little hint of extremism, maybe a dash of racism, pinch of disguised hate. Try to imagine Fred posted on his sad little hill talking nonsense like “forgive trespasses” or “turn the other cheek.” What a joke.

But, in spite of this, I don't think it is our fault. I think Fred-- Fred the devout, the righteous, the faithful-- passionately and unconditionally loves the Lord with all his being. Fred prepares to speak at that day’s chosen grassy, crowded place and feels the Lord lift him. “Give me courage, Lord; give me strength; give me the words.” Fred speaks. Harshly but honestly.

Let me pause here. For now, I am not very interested in Fred’s story-- not his intentions, or his background, or his particular flavor of Christianity. I am more interested in the Christian that heard his sermon on the street. “He gives Christians a bad name!” they'll say. “He’s not a true Christian!”

Fred-- our esteemed Christian zealot-- is not a true Christian? Now, wait a minute. I understand that Fred might have some ingrained extremist, racist, and apocalyptic thoughts, but he read the Bible just as you. Page by page, Fred formed the Christian foundation that now defines his life and drives his heart. Go ahead and try preaching to Fred. Try to shake up Fred’s roots with some Scripture that seemingly contradicts his actions and he will just as quickly bellow a rationalization or additional Scripture that counters your point. This happens so frequently within Christian circles. If you’re Christian, I urge you to read the Scripture that motivates the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to commit their horrid actions in the name of the Lord.

As you read their proof (supported by Scripture) that God does not love everyone, you’ll be inclined to say “No, they’re interpreting the Scripture incorrectly.” But not so fast. Read those lines again. Do they loosely support the claims of the WBC? Yes. Other than simply recalling your understanding of the Bible and Christianity, can you explain why one interpretation (yours) should supersede theirs? No. The problem here is that the Bible is infinitely interpretable. One can manipulate its words to reflect whatever backward and narrow-minded or uplifting and inclusive message they wish. Thankfully, overall, mainstream Christianity preaches a message of hope and benevolence. But one cannot claim that the interpretations of the WBC are not at least as solid as mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of when life begins or whether homosexual marriage should be prohibited by law.

So the next time you see Fred, don’t get angry at him and call his sermon blasphemous. Rather, consider Fred a gift-- a symbol of the malleability of the Bible. Let Fred remind you that you needn’t pursue petty intolerances just because someone’s slanted interpretation of the Bible asks otherwise.