Archive for the ‘Sexuality’ Category

Privacy or Not?

Monday, October 24th, 2005

On October 11, it was National Coming Out Day, a day encouraging GLBT persons to proclaim their sexuality to family, friends, and loved ones.

While I see benefits of sharing such an intimate aspect of oneself to loved ones, I also respect a person’s decision for privacy. For instance, do I need to tell my loved ones if I struggle with heterosexual lust? Should there be a campaign that encourages me to share these thoughts with my loved ones? The point is, I have a right to privacy and I have the right to keep such intimate details of myself to myself.

So although I understand some of the tenants of National Coming Out Day, it appears that the GLBT community contradicts itself by browbeating persons to disclose their sexual identity. Take a recent editorial from the Washington Blade

The author, Kevin Naff, suggests that it is shameful that celebrities have not come out of the closet and proclaimed their sexuality to - not just their loved ones - but to the world. Kevin attempts to out persons such as Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith, which may be true or may only be speculation. Kevin, on one hand, the GLBT community argues for sexual equality because each person should have a right to privacy. On the other hand, you appear to browbeat persons to disclose their sexual inclinations for the good of the cause. It seems rather hypocritical to me.

It’s one thing to encourage persons to be proud of their sexuality, still another to browbeat disclosure, even to the point of outing persons to the world, only to advance your cause.

Tags: [, , , , , ]

WWYD?

Friday, October 21st, 2005

Hat tip to Vincent at WorldMag Blog for this one:

“You are married and had a one-night stand last weekend during a business trip. One night, your spouse asked you out of the blue, “Would you ever cheat on me?” What Would You Do?

This may be one of those rare instances where lying is, regretfully, the right thing to do. (You might argue that since you would never consider cheating again, it is not a lie, strictly speaking.)…”

What!? What makes this story even more shocking is that the author has the title of “ethicist” and sabotages (me too!) the famous WWJD acronym in the title of his article.

Tags: [, , , , , , ]

Sex With Children is Good

Tuesday, September 27th, 2005

WorldNetDaily highlights a book that appears to promote adult-child sex as “beneficial” by serving a “mentoring function.”

The book, “Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West,” includes a chapter by Bruce Rind called, “Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data.”

Here’s the chapter synopsis:

“Pederasty, or sexual relations between men and adolescent boys, is condemned in our society as an unqualified evil that maims and destroys. In ancient Greece, samurai Japan, and numerous other cultures, pederasty was seen as the noblest of human relations, conducive if not essential to nurturing the adolescent’s successful intellectual and physical maturation…

The current article examines empirical rather than clinical data on pederasty, and supplements this with cross-cultural and cross-species perspectives. The empirical data show that pederasty is not only not predestined to injure, but can benefit the adolescent when practiced according to the ancient Greek form. Cross-cultural and cross-species data show the extensiveness of pederasty in the natural world, as well as its functional rather than pathological nature in these societies and species.”

This is unfathomable! A scientific article that appears to promote pederasty? What if we were examining an adult male having “consensual” sex with an adolescent girl?

The point here has nothing to do with whether or not a child (or adolescent) will be traumatized by such an experience. Just because trauma may not occur does not make it right. Aren’t adults charged with protecting the innocent?

This is not the first time Bruce Rind has submitted controversial “scholarly” research for publication.

Fortunately, WorldNetDaily did a great job pointing out this outrageous book. Here’s what I found on the publisher’s site after they received complaints:

“The Haworth Press, Inc., has cancelled publication of this book. The company Board of Directors and Ethics Committee met on the matter and have voted not to proceed with publication of the book.

Our editors generally have sole authority over what they decide to publish in the journals and books they edit, and this good-faith agreement usually works well, but on occasion, an editor accepts something that sparks negative controversy.

We have decided not to go ahead with publication of this book. We wish to note that the majority of this book deals with the historical aspect of homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome, which is classified as scholarship. Readers have noted, however, that one chapter of the book could be interpreted as advocating adult and adolescent sexuality. We thank the public for bringing this to our attention.

Haworth publishes many valuable journals and books on the treatment and prevention of child sexual abuse, and we wish to reiterate our commitment to the treatment and prevention of all types of abuse against children and others.”

Tags: [, , , , , , , , , ]

“Screw Abstinence” Party

Friday, July 15th, 2005

Pro-Choice t-shirtSorry. I’m a bit late to the game on this one. NARAL of Washington threw a “Screw Abstinence” party on July 14th, indicating that

“abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives…promote dangerous misinformation.”

Can someone please tell me what misinformation provided in such programs is so dangerous?

Tags: [, , , , , , , , , ]

A Moral Distinction Between IVF and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Friday, June 17th, 2005

I’ve been reading some recent blog articles comparing/contrasting the ethics of in-vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research:

I’d like to respond to the following from “TGirsch” of the Lean Left crew:

“To my knowledge, there exists no method of IVF that doesn’t involve the destruction of some embryos. Even if such destruction is the result of failed implantations, the end result is that you have still intentionally created embryos knowing that the majority of them would be destroyed. If life begins at conception, then destroying an embryo – any embryo, whether naturally or artificially conceived – is tantamount to taking a life. And, if their reasoning is consistent, taking a life is wrong whether the intent is to save other lives somewhere down the road, or to create a new life in the near future.”

This is an interesting argument, but I believe a failed one. “Destruction” and “natural selection” are not equivalent concepts. I understand the point that people who believe IVF is morally permissible go into the procedure knowing that some of the harvested and outside-the-womb-combined eggs and sperm may not become viable. However, what the Lean Left folks fail to mention is that the same natural selective process occurs, even during intercourse. For example, take what the Center for Reproductive Health & Gynecology has to say about unexplained infertility:

“Once an egg is fertilized, there is an 80 percent chance of cell division. The rate of division of the resulting embryo is also of significance. Usually 48 hours after fertilization, the embryo is between two to four cells (blastomeres). At 72 hours, they are usually between six to eight cells. After five days of growth, they are usually over 120 cells with a fluid cavity in the middle (Blastocyst). If a larger than expected percentage of embryos divide slowly or stop dividing at any stage, this can result in infertility.”

So, does this mean that no one should try to conceive naturally, because persons may knowingly or unknowingly be destroying (through natural selection) a newly fertilized embryo? Come on.

There are marked ethical and moral differences between IVF procedures and embryonic stem cell research. The goal of IVF is to create life. The harvesting procedure might result in embryos that die through natural selection, but the intent is for all of them to be viable. Yes, many fertilized eggs may result from harvesting the eggs from a woman and the sperm from a man, but fertility clinics (with the consent of the patient) only implant the number of embryos that the patient is willing to bring to term in a healthy manner. While some of these embryos might die when attempting to implant, there is no intent for destruction here. I believe that the ethical issue with this procedure has nothing to do with placing embryos into the patient (knowing some might die), but what to do with the possibility of having extra embryos that cannot be used in the initial implantation procedure (due to the ethics of not implanting too many for the safety of the patient). That moves us towards the slippery slope of using these embryos for anything other than use by the couple involved in the procedure or for donation to other expectant parents.

With regard to embryonic stem cell research, we move into the arena of willfully destroying embryos (life, or potential life, depending on your definition) for a “greater good” by possibly helping people who have health-related problems. Is there even an argument that using embryos for research is nothing but destroying life, even “potential life” if you believe otherwise?

Yes, there is a “treatment” more benign than IVF that can make parents out of nonparents - adoption. There’s also (adult) stem cell research that needn’t involve the destruction of life (or potential life). However, I argue that the two cannot be compared. IVF, when approached in an ethical manner, strives to produce healthy embryos. It’s not the procedure that is unethical, it’s the decision as to what to do with extra embryos that are not used in the initial implantation procedure. My vote would be that these embryos be given every change for life by either 1) being used for a later implantation procedure for the original patient or 2) donated for use by another needy couple. Each of these steps promotes life. Embryonic stem cell research, however, promotes life only by first destroying life (or a potential life).

Tags: [, , , , , , , , , , ]

A Call to Be Radical Christians! Part III

Monday, June 13th, 2005

Queer and Christian: A Response

The third and final installment of my three part series on being Radical Christians deals with evangelical Christians and our failure to be a light in the GLBT community. I recently stumbled upon a blog (technorati search on “Christianity” revealed the post) that appears to deal with GLBT issues. More interestingly, I stumbled upon a specific post from one of the authors entitled, “Queer and Christian?” Here’s a portion of what the Ona Marae had to say:

“I am one of those people that finds it easier to be Queer in a sometimes hostile Christian environment than being Christian in most Queer environments. This is not due to a wishy-washy faith or embarassment about my beliefs, but rather the fact that Christianity has been used to do massive spiritual violence against my community.

If you look carefully, it’s not the agnostics or athiests in this country doing the Queer-bashing, it is, for the vast majority of the time, Christians. While there are other world religions who find homosexuality (etc) incompatible with thier teachings, American Christianity has it down to a nasty and political science.”

Ona goes on to say:

“To be as brief as possible, Liberation theology comes out of Latin America and basically states that God is on the side of the Oppressed. If you look through all the texts Christians call their Bible, you will see that God stands in alignment with the marginalized, the oppressed, the widow and orphan, the refugee, women, Samaritans, Lepers and anyone else who is ostracized by their society. I find it interesting that Jesus’ words of accusation were for the religious leadership of his day, not for the people they called “sinner”. I wonder who he would call a serpent today….”

Hmm…God is on the side of the oppressed? I’m not quite sure I can follow this line of reasoning. Once again, I will try to offer my “radical right wing religious” perspective as civilly as possible. I do not want to put GID and other sexual issues discussed here on the same level as what I’m about to say, so please do not misunderstand me.

At what point would you draw the line on this “oppressed” line of thought? Would God be “on the side” of the oppressed folks who have sexual inclinations (whether nature or nurture) towards incest or bestiality or necrophilia? The point I want to make is that these groups (bestiality, alcoholics, incest, necrophilia) too can be considered oppressed because society would frown on persons who have these sexual inclinations or persons who embrace alcoholism. The Bible instructs persons to not get imbibed on too much alcohol and it also instructs persons not to have sexual relationships with family members, animals, the dead, or persons of the same sex. That’s my perspective which I feel is clearly laid out in the Bible. Others more knowledgeable than I can provide better arguments on the subject.

This isn’t about taking sides…but if God did take sides, He would take the side of humanity - because we are ALL sinners. I sympathize with anyone who does not “choose” to be the way there are, but resulting behaviors are not necessarily in line with what God would consider “blameless.” And, as Christians, aren’t we instructed to be imitators of Christ, to strive to be pure and blameless? Now, while I may disagree with the “taking sides” argument, I do believe that Jesus Christ died for EVERYONE, regardless of inclinations based on nature or nurture. It is His forgiveness of our sins that allows us to be seen as blameless, but we must be repentant.

Christians Have Failed to Love GLBT “Others”

Nonetheless, I agree with Ona that the evangelical Christian community has done an abominable job reaching out to these oppressed persons, but I would argue that the failings of evangelical Christians is primarily due to apathy or selfish concerns (e.g., preserving traditional values, etc.), not hate. Certainly the GLBT agenda threatens evangelical Christians because, unlike the other “opressed” groups I mentioned, society is beginning to accept the GLBT agenda - that these behaviors are perfectly normal and acceptable. Radical groups like God Hates Fags paint Christians in a hateful angry light, but the challenge is for Christians to make their voice heard too in a thoughtful way. Groups like James Dobson’s (Focus on the Family) PAC try to, but perhaps they too cross the line at times. “Mainstream” evangelical Christians might instead be apathetic because they feel that it might be a lost cause to reach out to people who seem unwilling to interpret the Bible as a God-breathed literal text instead of a “dynamic” text that changes with society’s norms?

“Less Judgment, More Love” (By Words and Actions)

As I mentioned in an earlier post of this series, I feel that Christians need to walk a fine line between judgment and compassion. It is much easier to be aloof and judgmental rather than participatory and compassionate. I believe evangelical Christians must make their thoughts known, but in a loving way. Take what Leviticus 19:7 has to say:

“Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.”

I believe that this powerful yet simple verse explains it all. As Christians, we must acknowledge that we too are the worst of sinners, but we should compassionately point out the sin of others, yet love them, not hate them or ostracise them.

In my call for us to be Radical Christians, how might we reach out to the GLBT community for Christ? Perhaps in following the South Beach Diet credo of “less (bad) carbs, more (good) protein,” Radical Christians should follow a credo of “less judgment, more love.” If we acknowledge that we are just as sinful and struggle with temptations equally, then perhaps we can view others more as Jesus does. GLBT persons will not change their behavior just because a Radical Christian calls them sick sinners. Similarly, I might not change my behavior if I did not respect the opinion of the person who challenged me. Evangelical Christians do not win converts or transform a person, only God does. Therefore, let’s give room for God to work - state your position, but then through words and actions, love as Christ loves.

Thus concludes this series, “A Call to be Radical Christians.” I believe that Christians must

  • stand up for what we believe;
  • equally show love and compassion to others;
  • remember that Jesus spent much of His ministry preaching love;
  • remember that God (not humankind) changes hearts; and
  • prove the old addage “actions speak louder than words” true by following Christ’s command in John 13:34:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

Tags: [, , , , , , ]

Who’s Your Daddy?

Monday, June 13th, 2005


1 800 DNA Test

1800DNATestI was driving to work this morning and heard a crazy radio commercial advertizing DNA testing services to the potentially snookered father. The commercial implied that men might use this test if they are not sure that their child is, indeed, theirs. The questioning father can simply swab the mouth of both the child and himself, mail in the kit for processing, and after and a few week turnaround, these questioning fathers can privately determine whether or not they are the biological father.


Target’s Baby DNA Kit

Target DNA Test1 800 DNA Test is a service using this poor radio advertizing. I was surprised to find out that Target also has a DNA test; however, at least it is marketed for the protection of the child, not the father.

Tags: [, , ]