Chapter Twelve
The Demonization of Sex
How Scripture Vilifies Both Straight and Gay Sex While Sanctifying Celibacy, a Paradigm That Works Against Nature and Nature’s God
- “Jesus Christ”, Matthew (KJV) 19:12
Humans are sexual beings. This is a simple fact not to be disputed. Sex is not simply essential for procreation; our desire for sexual gratification is hardwired into our being and is quite easily one of the most powerful motives of human nature. Coming to terms with our sexuality in a healthy way is arguably an essential component to our spiritual wellbeing. Unfortunately, the New Testament fails to deal with the topic of human sexuality in a positive way. This “Word of God”, which ought to be expected to provide guidance in all aspects of our lives, is handicapped in this critical field.
The Sanctification of Celibacy
Paul was obsessed with celibacy as the preferred Christian lifestyle and felt that marriage was the next best option for those who couldn’t exercise such self-restraint.
First Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
The scriptural view of sex, as established in the New Testament, is that all sex is, at least to some extent, dirty and sinful. Being married apparently lessens the degree to which it is a sin but the fact that the New Testament establishes celibacy as the preferred lifestyle leaves little room for doubt on this issue. Paul’s teachings apparently influenced the Gospel writers. At one point in the Book of Matthew, Jesus speaks well of those who castrate themselves for the kingdom of heaven. [1]
How could such a natural process, essential to both the survival of our species and to our own spiritual wellbeing, be such an abomination before the very God that made us?
Political Implications
The impact of the scriptural view of sex can be seen in the Christian right’s efforts to legislate American culture closer to a Puritan model. Perhaps the most dramatic and damaging of all these efforts is the evangelical push to modify how our children are educated about sex.
“Abstinence Only Sex Education”
Abstinence only sex education is self-descriptive enough. Such programs silence the discussion of the use of contraception and other forms of birth control (except perhaps to spread disinformation about them, detailed later). Children are simply taught to abstain from sex until marriage. The theory, apparently, is that teenagers will abstain from sex if they’re not educated about it in a class.
The impotency of such programs to stop teens from having sex is well documented. In one study conducted by Texas A&M University, commissioned by the Texas Department of State Health Services, found that the rate of sexual activity among both adolescent girls and boys increased after they received abstinence education (from 24% to 39% for adolescent boys and from 23% to 29% for adolescent girls). [2]
A Congressional Report, “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs” prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman, had this to say regarding the ineffectiveness of the programs:
“There have been several studies of the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. These studies have found that abstinence-only education does not appear to decrease teen pregnancy or the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. In the most comprehensive analysis of teen pregnancy prevention programs, researchers found that ‘the few rigorous studies of abstinence-only curricula that have been completed to date do not show any overall effect on sexual behavior or contraceptive use.’
“One recent study of abstinence-only programs found that they may actually increase participants’ risk. Columbia University researchers found that while virginity ‘pledge’ programs helped some participants to delay sex, 88% still had premarital sex… Virginity pledgers were also less likely to use contraception when they did have sex and were less likely to seek STD testing despite comparable infection rates.” [3]
A Guaranteed Way to Increase Teen Pregnancy and the Spread of STDs
It’s predictable that those educated in abstinence-only programs are going to be “less likely to use contraception”. When the program fails and the teens go back on their abstinence pledges, they’re poorly equipped to make informed decisions regarding the use of contraception. Some may even employ less dependable means of birth control, such as withdrawal or rhythm methods. Teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs can be expected to increase with the implementation of abstinence only sex education programs.
Lying for Decency?
Some Fundamentalist Christians apparently have no problem breaking the commandment against giving false witness if they feel that the cause is good enough. The issue of abstinence-only sex education underscores this point. The Congressional Report on these programs also charged that eleven out of the thirteen curricula most commonly used “contain major errors and distortions of public health information.” [4]
The report cited examples of the disinformation taught by abstinence-only sex education programs:
- That condoms don’t offer reliable protection against HIV. Some programs allege that condom walls are permeable and pathogens can “pass through” them. In fact, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention findings have made it clear that “latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens”. [5]
- That condoms don’t offer reliable protection against other STDs. The CDC and World Health Organization also refute these claims. [6]
- That condoms don’t offer reliable protection against pregnancy. Several curricula distorted the data to exaggerate condom failure. [7]
- That abortion runs a 5-10% chance of ruining a woman’s chances to have children later. Obstetrics textbooks will refute this claim. [8]
- That abortion may cause premature birth in the first pregnancy that follows. Again, obstetrics textbooks will refute this claim. [9]
- That abortion causes severe anxiety and depression in women afterwards. The American Psychiatric Association refutes this claim. [10]
- That life begins at conception or very soon thereafter. These curricula contain bogus assertions about fetal development or, in some cases, simply refer to the newly fertilized Zygote as the “instant a new human life is formed”. [11]
- That there’s a cause and effect between sexual activity among teenagers and mental health problems among troubled teens. As the Congressional Report says, there are no studies that support such assertions. [12]
Failing to teach teenagers about the proper use of contraception is irresponsible. Lying to them about their effectiveness is unethical. Both will result in less contraception use during sex, which can be expected to increase the rates of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
An Inherently Unethical Educational Practice
The Society for Adolescent Medicine released a position paper of its own on the topic, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health. They supported the findings that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective and harmful but went a step further by calling the practice “unethical”:
“Health care providers and health educators have ethical obligations to provide accurate health information. Patients and students have rights to accurate and complete information from heath professionals. Health care providers may not withhold information from a patient in order to influence their health care choices. It is unethical to provide misinformation or withhold information about sexual health that teens need in order to protect themselves from STDs.” [13]
-John Santelli, Journal of Adolescent Health
Nature’s God and Sexual Morality
Questioning the biblical stance on sex or criticizing the strict conservative Christian views should not necessarily be taken to be a call to throw out monogamy or abolish marriage. We observe in nature how animals have customs and rituals they follow in mating as best suit their particular needs. Different animals have different parenting patterns. For example, the mother might be the only parent. Some animals, such as frogs, don’t parent their offspring at all.
Humans have some of the most evolved parenting patterns of any of the animals. Both the mother and father (ideally) have a role to play in the child’s development, both (ideally) bond with the child and the child is typically raised until it can literally have children of its own. With such extensive parenting needs of human children, it’s no wonder that all cultures establish some form of custom regarding the formation of family units.
Sex can lead to the creation of children who, in turn, require a substantial commitment to say the least (approximately 20 years of life). Between this consideration and the unfortunate presence of STDs, there are logical reasons why sleeping around indiscriminately can be a very bad idea. Similarly, there are logical reasons why we should encourage our youth to value relationships, integrity and commitment.
All that said, the solution is not to overreact and treat sex as universally dirty or sinful. Neither is it helpful to lie to teenagers under a misguided notion that we need to protect them from the truth. Our society should educate them so they may make informed choices for their lives.
Why Does Love Become “Evil” When the Body Parts Are Similar?
“I agree with capital punishment. I believe that homosexuality is one of those that could be coupled with murder and other sins. It would be the government that sits upon this land who would be executing the homosexuals.” [14]
- Dean Wycoff, Moral Majority, Santa Clara County
Another way that Christianity promotes an unhealthy view of sex is its treatment of same-gender love and the vilification of those who seem inclined toward the practice. Essentially, according to Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings, romantic love is especially “evil” when the body parts are similar. It sounds silly when the taboo is explained that way but that is what it is, expressed in very plain language.
The impact of this taboo is pervasive. In our society, we believe that love between two “significant others” is instantly transformed from being a beautiful, lauded emotion to being a horrible abomination and threat to our societal values (not to mention a great social stigma) simply with the subtle distinction that the two lovers have similar body parts at the groin.
This taboo seems especially strange when we consider that it’s immature in the extreme to see love as being all about the physical mechanics of sex. Most people would agree that romantic love is a spiritual connection between two people, one that should transcend petty concerns as body parts.
What makes marriage “sacred” are such qualities as love, devotion, commitment, fidelity and sharing the journey of life with another. For anyone with a mature concept of a good marriage, body parts shouldn’t even be on the list. Yet, body parts are #1 on that list with Christian evangelicals. The idea that a couple should be allowed to marry when they don’t meet the body part criteria is unthinkable to them. “Protecting the sanctity of marriage” has become the rallying cry of Christian Fundamentalists as they seek to enact legislation and constitutional amendments that will keep marriage an exclusive privilege of couples with dissimilar body parts.
The taboo against same gender love is very powerful in our society and permeates all levels. Love between those with similar body parts is reviled both as “immoral” and as an extreme social stigma. Even the attitudes of those who are not religious are heavily influenced by the taboo. Violence against gays and lesbians is still all too common. [15]
The effect of this taboo can be seen on a political level. In 2004, the Kentucky State Legislature ended their legislative year being unable to pass a budget for the state. [16] They simply didn’t have time with their busy schedule. What did they make time for? What burning issue was so much more important than being sure that our schools are properly funded? Passing an amendment to the state constitution banning same-gender marriage. [17]
Stopping people with similar body parts from tying the knot was more important to the Kentucky legislature than funding our schools or paving our roads.
Were the Kentucky congressmen crazy or stupid? No. Well, perhaps some of them are but not on this issue. They were simply reflecting the priorities of their constituents. Voters overwhelmingly approved the amendment that November. [18]
Is Kentucky alone in the United States for having such odd priorities? No. The rest of the country seems to have a problem keeping its priorities “straight”. The taboo against same gender love is a national obsession. The two most significant issues during the 2004 election year were the war in Iraq and same gender marriage. Many political pundits commented that it was the same gender marriage issue (not the war in Iraq) that galvanized conservative voters and made the difference in the close election.
In sum: Stopping people with similar body parts from getting hitched was more important to American voters in 2004 than health care, budget deficits, job losses or global warming.
Defenders of a same-gender marriage ban will argue that it’s vital to protecting the “sanctity of marriage” (never mind that Massachusetts, the only state to allow it, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation [19]). It’s odd that they, being so zealous to promote biblical values on marriage, don’t advocate the biblical law that calls for the stoning of adulterers or call for the banning of no-fault divorces. The Mark version of Jesus dictated that there were to be no divorces period:
Mark 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. …And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
The Matthew version of Jesus allows for an exception to this strict rule against divorce: if the wife cheats on her husband.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
The great and powerful Jesus has spoken! “Divorce + Remarriage = Adultery”. So why aren’t these self-righteous politicians who so passionately defend the “sanctity of marriage” also advocating the outlawing of divorce? Obviously, defending marriage is simply a pretext for bigotry.
How did this taboo against same-gender love come to be? There are examples of non-Christian, non-Muslim societies that have a more liberal attitude, so we know it isn’t fixed in human nature. Ancient Greece and Rome, prior to their conversion to Christianity, are prominent examples. How did the Abrahamic religions come to adopt this rule that became so important to their society?
To answer this question, ask yourself which is more likely:
Is it more likely that God, the Creator of hundreds of millions of galaxies, really is so obsessed with the issue of making sure all lovers have dissimilar body parts?
Or
Is it more likely that the society that founded these religions was obsessed with population growth and therefore sought to put the kibosh on any sexual activity that didn’t result in procreation?
With the planet having achieved 6 billion souls and with overpopulation, not underpopulation, being a serious problem for humanity, this taboo is clearly obsolete if it ever served any productive purpose in the first place.
Nature’s God and Homosexuality
Far from same-gender love being an abomination before God, judging from observations of the animal kingdom, it seems to exist in nature. It appears that a variety of sexual orientations are part of God’s plan.
Dr. Bruce Bagemihl, in his exhaustive study on homosexuality among animals, had this to report in his book on the subject:
“On every continent, animals of the same sex seek each other out and have probably been doing so for millions of years. They court each other, using intricate and beautiful mating dances that are the result of eons of evolution. Males caress and kiss each other, showing tenderness and affection toward one another rather than just hostility or aggression. Females form long-lasting pair-bonds – or maybe just meet briefly for sex, rolling in passionate embraces or mounting one another. Animals of the same sex build nests and homes together, and many homosexual pairs raise young without members of the opposite sex. Other animals regularly have partners of both sexes, and some even live in communal groups where sexual activity is common among all members, male and female. Many creatures are ‘transgendered,’ crossing or combining characteristics of both males and females in their appearance or behavior. Amid this incredible variety of different patterns, one thing is certain: the animal kingdom is most definitely not just heterosexual.
“Homosexual behavior occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals worldwide, and is found in every major geographic region and every major animal group. It should come as no surprise, then, that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. Whether one is discussing the forms it takes, its frequency, or its relationship to heterosexual activity, same-sex behavior in animals exhibits every conceivable variation.” [20]
Dr. Bagemihl is not the only researcher to make this discovery. The Oslo Natural History Museum recently presented an exhibit that documented homosexuality in the animal kingdom. As a Yahoo.com news article reported on the event:
Greg Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled “Against Nature”, told Reuters: “Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.” [21]
These findings aren’t new but have been suppressed up until now by Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies. As the news article continued to report:
Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear of ridicule. [22]
So much for homosexuality being “unnatural”. Observations of ancient (pre-Christian and pre-Muslim) societies confirm what we observe in the animal kingdom. Imagine traveling in time thousands of years to a future society where people identified their sexual orientation according to their attraction to a particular hair-color. People in this future hypothetical world use such terms as “blondist” or “brunettist” to describe their sexuality. This would seem odd to us much the same way that “gay” and “straight” would be to an ancient Greek or Roman.
“Were a Roman to take a time machine trip to the modern world, he or she would be shocked I think to find that we divide sexuality up into two groups according to the gender of the object of desire. So we divide people up into homosexual and heterosexual. The Romans had no such division.” [23]
-Historian Dr. Joy Connolly,
Interviewed by The History Channel
In the absence of artificial taboos, ancient Greco-Roman society seemed to understand that love was love, sex was sex and human sexuality consists of bisexual shades of gray.
It would also seem, to answer that tiresome Christian cliché on the subject, that God created Adam, Eve and Steve …as well as Bob, Sally, Lisa, Bill, Tom, Shirley, Heather, Becky and a wide variety of others.
Nature’s Godparents?
Why would God create homosexuality (or bisexuality for that matter)? We can only speculate but one possible explanation is as a contingency plan. It creates couples that can’t have children of their own. They will be ready and able to adopt for children who have lost their parents for whatever reason.
Psychology studies support this idea that same-gender couples are equally capable of adopting and raising children as their heterosexual counterparts. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston conducted one such study, which she presented at the 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition. Dr. Perrin found:
“A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual… the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and non-gay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others… Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents’ sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children’s development.” [24]
Such an elaborate contingency plan to care for orphaned children could be seen as proof of an intelligent Creator. With unguided evolution, we should expect nature to breed out of the system that which doesn’t promote survival or produce offspring. We still don’t fully understand what causes homosexuality but it seems to survive even in a violently hostile environment as a Christian society. Perhaps it is a sign of Design, ironically one that many Christians will want to deny.
|| PREVIOUS CHAPTER || TABLE OF CONTENTS ||NEXT CHAPTER ||
