Sheep and Goats

Advise and Consent and Sexual Orientation

Written by

tomsheepandgoats

in

, , , ,

Talk about politically incorrect!

Senator Anderson punches his gay ex-lover in the mouth. The poor fellow drops face-down in the gutter. Now…there's a lot of things that can happen to a guy when he's punched, but this guy goes in the gutter! Face down! The unmistakable symbolism: that's where he belongs!!*

That's how Otto Preminger treated homosexuality in his 1962 movie Advise and Consent. A former Academy Award winning director, Preminger took bows for his film. Today, he'd be crucified for it. When the movie was re-done for DVD a few years ago , the homosexual sub-plot was replaced with a Jewish one. (even though the original plot was based upon a true incident.)

 

Times have changed. It's anyone with an unkind word about homosexuality who belongs in the gutter today. The District Overseer can barely believe his own words as he observes: "nowadays, only homosexuals want to get married." Evidence, he maintains, that the world is "upside down."

It sure seems that way from any historical perspective.  In my lifetime, I've seen homosexuality go from reviled fringe to cutting-edge alternative. There once seemed nothing more unlikely than this verse becoming reality:

Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.    Rom 1:24-27

It's an unflattering view of homosexuality, but I don't include it for that reason, rather, for it's implication that homosexuality would become commonplace. Nobody of my generation would ever have foreseen it. Seemingly, the going against what is "natural" was enough to rule it out. When you work with plumbing or electricity, you link the male end with the female end. Always. That's the way it's done. Nobody thinks it's cutting edge plumbing to solder two male ends together, or female. It doesn't happen. And it's always been that way with human sexuality. Doubtless, that's how we came to apply those terms to electricity and plumbing.

Preminger's portrayal plays mean-spirited today, yet it was right in sync with popular sentiment of that time – indeed,  of any time. Homosexuality used to be perverted. Now, however, it is edgy, and heterosexuality….well, a little unimaginative, if not downright dull. The very words straight (inflexible, efficient, but monotonous) vs gay (happy, live life to the full!) are rife with the implication. Tabloids breathlessly speculate about this or that star. Are they attracted to …..yawn, how boring….the opposite sex, OR are they enamored with…..cross your fingers, oh please, please, please….the SAME sex! Yes!! That's what I'm talkin about!!!

It's unbelievable!! How can this be the rage? How can it be mainstream? Yes, as a small fringe…that has always been, but how can it seriously rival "natural" sex attraction? Can they all really have been born that way?

Are any of them born that way? Freud used to say that sexuality was determined at a very early age based on interaction of the parents. He's shouted down today on that point, but is there reason to shout him down? Or is his theory, which implies abnormality, just not what people want to hear today?

Or are there yet other factors at work?

Otto Preminger pioneered in introducing taboo subjects to film: homosexuality in Advise and Consent, rape in Anatomy of a Murder, drug addiction in The Man With the Golden Arm. You can count upon films making abundant use of these juicy themes today, but in Preminger's time they were unheard of. Yet, from Advise and Consent (1962) on, every film treatment of homosexuality was more favorable than the one before. Today, there's no film stigma whatsoever about gays, as there was then. Quite the opposite. The gay character is cool, intriguing, hip, contrasting well with other dullards on the show.

I don't pretend to know how to weigh these 3 factors – genetics, Freud, media – or if there are yet other ones. The endorsement of the psychiatric profession, for example. Excess hormones, for another, readily found in modern food and water supplies. Not that this would cause homosexuality, I don't imagine. But it may push sexuality to be much more fluid, more susceptible to other influences. Pure guesswork on my part. I don't really know. But I'll tell you one thing. Never would my generation have anticipated that sexual identity would be so pliable as it has proved to be. That the Bible forecasts this, against all then-common wisdom, is a major point in its favor.

 

………………………….

[EDIT    Feb 21, 2010] The newly emerging field of epigenetics also suggests some possibilities.

*******  The bookstore

 

Comments

63 responses to “Advise and Consent and Sexual Orientation”

  1. tom sheepandgoats Avatar
    tom sheepandgoats

    Look, I don’t really know. I don’t have an Aid book, which went out of print decades ago. Perhaps whoever wrote the Insight article wished to soften the impact of the Aid article, so he focused on motive, rather than act. Perhaps because he knew some had had such an operation in good conscience, imagining only the distraction of having children in the “last days” yet also the importance of rendering the marital due. (though Paul and Jesus stayed free from both of those tasks) It’s just guesswork, TrAg, and I start to tire of the subject, which doesn’t seem too significant regardless of the thinking of the author. Both remarks present sterilization in a negative light. Humans write these books, and humans are full of foibles. I don’t feel I have to figure them all out, and in any event, I don’t think it’s possible.
    I still haven’t read the long Mike Huckabee comment. You’ve kept me hopping with all these lesser ones. (smile) I’ll get to it in time.
    You did use the word ‘endorse’ – see comment of Oct 10, 8:14 PM
    See what I mean about lots of comments? You can’t keep your own comments straight, nor can I mine.

    Reply
  2. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    For the most part, your sentiments are shared with me as well. It isn’t true that both statments put sterilization in a negative light. But you are right about humans being “full of foibles”. And when the topic is homosexualtiy, this fact is even more true. That’s no small matter.
    And thanks for bringing my attention to my mistake about my use of the word “endorse”. And it’s not about keeping comments straight. It’s the fact that unlike a forum, it’s hard to follow what specific post is being responded to. Enjoy your day brother!!
    P.S. I do enjoy your other articles. Nice blog you have here!

    Reply
  3. tom sheepandgoats Avatar
    tom sheepandgoats

    TrAg: Okay. I read it.
    It’s a lot of word derivations. A lot of comparing translations. I like stuff like that, and it’s interesting to see how some have given “homosexual verses” an extra twist of the knife, adding their own extra emphasis. And also how, taking some liberties with the text, lesbians got written into a translation or two.
    Still, I’m not sure how it changes the bigger picture. If, for example, the two guests at Sodom were not actually men, does it really matter? They sure looked like men. The townspeople thought they were men.
    Likely, straight society overreacts to homosexuality, singling in out as the “vice among vices.” But that still doesn’t mean that homosexuality is the way God meant us to be. It is one of a great many deviations from the norm that have come about since Eden, and I know of no easy solutions for the 3% Phil spoke of.

    Reply
  4. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    ” I have only admiration for those Christians with gay leanings who nonetheless are determined to live in accord with Bible standards. They are determined to stay celibate, if need be, in their service to God, with faith that it will turn out well for them in the end”
    And I have only admiration for those Christians with heterosexual leanings who nonetheless are determined to live in accord with Bible standards. They are determined to stay celibate, if need be, in their service to God, with faith that it will turn out well for them in the end.
    I think, for example, of a brother in a congregation not too far from me whose divorce many years ago was not in circumstances that leave him free to re-marry. He has to resist his heterosexual leanings and remain celibate and his faithful example is a genuine encouragement to me.
    And if you are picking up here, that I think the term “leanings” is an inadequate one, you are right! I don’t think the sex drive is really “leanings”.
    Your comment, Tom, about former and current attitudes to the bachelor or spinster life is interesting. In the Christian congregation there is the added knowledge that while marriage and childbearing were approved for Eden and for Israel, for Christians they are NOT the favoured choice. Jesus and the apostle Paul both made this very clear.
    And yet, the VAST majority in the Christian congreegation choose to give in to their heterosexual leanings, and marry and even procreate.
    With respect to the 2.9 percent, and the Kinsey 10 percent: The point of the original post here was, as I read it at the time, to suggest that the incidence of persons with a sex drive directed to their own sex was increasing.
    My reply was to suggest that it is not; that it is constant.
    As for the reliability of figures: This is probably not the place to go into all this. Suffice it to say that although the 10 percent figure does get bandied about, it seems (from wide reading of reputable current sources) that this figure is not accurate, and that 2.9 percent is accurate.
    If any are interested to look further into this matter, I can suggest suitable book titles.
    A ratio of 2.9 percent means that there are around two hundred thousand of Jehovah’s Witnesses whose sex drive is directed towards their own sex instead of the opposite sex.
    With regard to contraceptive choices, the position taken in the publications has been amended over the years to be careful not to “go beyond the things written”. There is a Question from Readers relevant to this in W99 6/15; also in W85 5/1 and in W75 3/1. It will be seen that the reasoning is refined in the light of medical advances and Scriptural considerations.
    The question is probably academic, however, since Christians do not marry but follow the counsel of Christ and Paul that it is better to remain single…… (which of course calls for suppressing one’s hetersexual leanings…..)

    Reply
  5. tom sheepandgoats Avatar
    tom sheepandgoats

    True enough. Jesus and Paul recommended singleness. Few follow their recommendation.

    Reply
  6. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    tomsheepandgoats:
    In looking at the Sodom story and all of the details that are retained within scripture, even the smallest elements within the account of Sodom and Gomorrah remain consistent. And if Genesis 19 is the reference that is used to support the idea that homosexuality was Sodom’s sin, then there are glaring biblical facts surrounding this account that make such a position erroneous. This will also explain why the other scriptures that many equate with homosexualtiy never refer to the Sodom story as a reference.
    In looking at the Kingdom Interlinear at Jude 7, the Greek captures the reference to Sodom’s sin by using the phrase “sarkos heteras”, literally “flesh different”. This phrase accurately aligns with the details of the Sodom account as initially recorded in Genesis. Because even though the mob referred to the strangers as “men”, the fact remains, they were materialized angles. So the ability for the mob’s encounter with them to be a “homo”sexual one isn’t even plausible. And the original language of Jude 7 highlights this detail with remarkable consistency. The bible does not precisely indicate what practices the mob had in mind when they responded to Lot. But what ever the mob had in mind, it is clear from the account itself that their intent was abuse. Note the response the mob gives to Lot when he tries to prevent them, “…This lone man came here to reside as an alien and yet he would actually play the judge. Now we are going to do WORSE to you than to them.” (Gen. 19:9). So what ever abuse the mob intended toward the strangers, it was going to be even worse for Lot. I think that Jehovah’s own commentary regarding the sin’s of Sodom is the most revealing. In highlighting the prostitution of Isreal, HE tells how the Isrealites’ sinfulness is worse than their sister Sodom. Here Jehovah is the first one to specify what Sodom’s sin was:
    Ezekiel 16:49-50
    “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a destestable thing before me, and I finally removed them just as I saw fit.
    So in the Genesis account, if in fact the mob mistook the strangers for mortal men, when almost an entire city approaches these two strangers in Lot’s house, it begs the question: What would nearly an entire city, known by Jehovah, for their inhospitality, want with two strangers who appeared as they themselves were? If you take the position that it was homosexual fornication, then what would these two strangers be able to provide that the city itself couldn’t ? Furthermore, when the mob says that it would do worse to Lot, would you take the position that they somehow wanted to homosexually fornicate with Lot in a way that was even worse? All of the scripture evidence compiles to reveal that the intent of the mob was abuse. It was abuse in some form or another, be it rape, carnel dehumanization, castration. Whatever form of abuse the mob had in mind, it was clear that Jehovah was aware of their hateful deeds. In Genesis 18:20 Jehovah reveals that there is a “cry of complaint” about Sodom and Gomorrah and intends to see for himself the accuracy of the cries for which he heard. And when he sees how they treat him, via his materialized angels, it becomes evident just what those “cries of complaint” were in response to: abuse.
    Even the evidence outside of scripture highlights the impression Sodom’s sin had on the proceeding Jews. And their umbrage towards the sin’s of Sodom remains consistent with biblical history. Their perspecive is telling. Did they associate Sodom with homosexuality? Even a casual search on something as assessible as wikipedia reveals that they didn’t. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_gomorrah
    The idea that homosexuality played a part in Sodom’s destruction is an invention of men that didn’t come onto the scene until many centuries later. That’s the reason why I talked about the etomology of the term “sodomite”. Sodomite, which has become synnomous with “homosexual” in everyday talk, is not a biblical term in structure or definition. Yet many bibles will use this term even though the original language of scripture doesn’t even remotely allow for it. The most quoted in regards to homosexuality is 1Cor. 6:9 where the Greek work arsenokoitai is rendered in some translations as “sodomite”. Unfortunately the New World Translation with References uses “sodomite” in a footnote, and then changes the actual Latin from “liers with males”, to “MEN who lie with men”. But what’s interesting is that the Greek word arsenokoitai isn’t used in Romans 1 or even by the “Church Fathers” in their early writings regarding homosexuality. That’s especially interesting with regards the “Church Fathers”, because it was around their time that the account of Sodom and Gomorrah began its evolution into it’s association with homosexuality. In Jude 7, the NWT’s rendering of “sarkos heteras”, as ” flesh for unnatural use” does more to invite the perception of homosexuality and less to accurately convey the account as recorded in Genesis. Whereas an actual rendering of the Greek for Jude 7, doesn’t do this.

    Reply
  7. tom sheepandgoats Avatar
    tom sheepandgoats

    “The bible does not precisely indicate what practices the mob had in mind when they responded to Lot.”
    Gen 19:5 – “And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
    Doesn’t that say it all?
    I’m not sure what you’re after. If you’re maintaining it’s unfortunate that the account has come to typify homosexuality in the eyes of many, I would not disagree. Rochester has a sizable gay community, second in the state only to NYC itself. It is one of the safest areas in the city. Our old Kingdom Hall used to be in that neighborhood. We sold it and built another because it was very cramped, certainly not because of any homophobia or fear that Gen 19 might repeat itself locally.

    Reply
  8. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    tomsheepandgoats:
    No, the biblical account itself along with all of the other scriptures within the bible that reference this story says it “all”. History is stained with extra-biblical sources that attempt to pull from this story a homosexual context. Every last one of those attempts deny “all” the biblical evidence present within the scriptures itself. To keep from writing a book, I will summarize by saying that trying to draw a homosexual content from this account denies the facts of the story itself. For example you conclude that since nearly the whole city, from boy to old man, approached these strangers, then this is an indicator of the homosexual activity prevalent within the city. You’re kidding right? As I asked before, what would nearly an entire city want from two mere strangers that they, the city, couldn’t provide to each other? But on the other hand, if the city was as inhospitable as Jehovah explicitly claimed, and even Jesus alluded to, then their actions begin to make sense. They weren’t seeking a homosexual encounter they had each other for that. They were seeking an attack on two outsiders. And yes their form of abuse could have very well been of a carnal nature as the word “yada”, (to know) can indicate. History confirms certain acts were used to humiliate and dehumanize, especially if the victims were outsiders or prisoners of war. Again as I showed in my last post, Gen 19:9 clearly shows the intent of the mob when they threatened to do WORSE to Lot. Like I said before, the bible does not indicate what practices the mob had in mind. Their intent was abuse, it could have been rape, physical humiliation, or maybe even castration. But if you think they what nearly an entire city wanted was intercourse with the strangers, as your isolated post suggests, then what do you think they wanted to do to Lot that was worse than “yada”? Your position assumes that if the mob consisted of women, then there would have been no sin and hence no intervening by the angels or Jehovah at this particular junction. How ridiculous!
    Please keep ALL of this story’s scriptural elements in tact. Consider how Lot was willing to divert their attention (hardly a sinless move) by offering up his daughters instead. Yet Jehovah never condemns him for it. If a reading of the account regarding Lot’s actions were read in the same dim light that the homosexuality theory was read within, then it would seem just as obvious from the account itself that the next time a mob of “homosexuals” is proceeding to threaten someone’s guests then it would be perfectly okay to throw virgin daughters at them in an attempt to appease them and perhaps “minimize the sin”. The thinking being that at least in this manner the fornication would be heterosexual and the byproduct would only be abuse to women. I could even see how some who support the homosexuality theory could go as far as to use this part of the story to promote the idea that gays should marry the opposite sex as some sort of a “cure”. Hence creating two miserable people in holy matrimony. The possibilities are endless.
    In the end, I believe that your position is an example of the dangers that can result when scripture is read outside it’s historic and cultural context, and without regard to ALL of the factual elements that are retained within the original language (e.g. Jude 7) of a particular scriptural account. Because regarding Lot’s actions, for example, when the cultural context is left in tact, it helps explain why Jehovah was able to not judge Lot’s actions as unrighteous despite our perception of absurdity. Because culturally speaking, in his space and time, his heart was in the right place.
    But ADD TO ALL OF THIS the fact that out of ALL the scriptures that many equate with homosexuality, not one of them refer to the Sodom account. Nor do the biblical references of Sodom ever equate it with homosexuality. Not Jehovah, not Jesus, not Paul, not Peter, and not Jude. Not one inspired writer or scripture does this. So why do you? Even the Jews (who were willing to “go beyond the things written” regarding Lev. 18:22 to include females) couldn’t escape the fact that homosexuality and Sodom was a foreign notion as even their own history indicates. The only references that link this story to homosexuality are all found outside of Scripture beginning nearly a millennium after the biblical account itself. And the evidence of the “progress” man-made Traditions have made continuing down that trend is indisputable. Ultimately, your final opinion is not based on the facts of the story itself, but rather an interpretation that is guilty of negating the context the original account was written within and the detailed elements that the account itself retains all throughout the actual language of scripture. Such an interpretation supports religion, not scripture.

    Reply
  9. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    tomsheepandgoats:
    I just got through re-reading your article again and I must say it makes me very angry!! How can you trivialize this topic and make some of the remarks that you do?!! It’s so un-empathetic to the reality of what it’s like to be gay and a Witness at that. Reading your article this second time around is so distancing to me.

    Reply
  10. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    tomsheepandgoats:



    I need to share this clip of this Mormon mother’s testimony with you. Every last syllable she utters is heartbreakingly true!

    Reply
  11. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    tomsheepandgoats:
    Also, regarding your article’s reference to Freud, I think you’ll find this letter of his in dispute with you claim Freud “implied”.
    In 1935, Freud wrote a mother who had asked him to treat her son a letter that later became famous[3]:
    I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime –and a cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis. By asking me if I can help [your son], you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies, which are present in every homosexual; in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted.
    What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.[10] (taken from the link below)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud's_views_about_homosexuality

    Reply
  12. tom sheepandgoats Avatar
    tom sheepandgoats

    “Because regarding Lot’s actions, for example, when the cultural context is left intact, it helps explain why Jehovah was able to not judge Lot’s actions as unrighteous despite our perception of absurdity. Because culturally speaking, in his space and time, his heart was in the right place.”
    I don’t agree with your premise that the Bible is like a giant report card in which God puts a grade upon every reported event. Most actions pass without comment – it is just recorded history – without indication as to whether God approved or not. If Jehovah specifically condemned, or specifically approved – yes, that would be significant. But to merely “refrain from judging” means nothing. Nor do I necessarily agree that Lot’s “heart was in the right place.” When given the choice where to live, he chose Sodom, in spite of the report that “the men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.” He at first lived in the district, later at the gates, later in the city, always working his way closer to the heart of things. When he warned of God’s coming destruction and everyone thought he was joking, possibly it’s because he’d made himself so comfortable in the city. His salvation appears to be more due to Abraham’s stature than his own.
    When people are afraid, there’s no limit to the cowardly things they may do. The Bible reports Job’s actions to the mob without comment, neither approving or disapproving. What he did was certainly cowardly. Perhaps he also thought that raping angels would be worse? Did he know they were angels by that time? He had also surrounded himself with non-worshipers of Jehovah for many years – who knows what practices of theirs may have rubbed off on him? At any rate, the two daughters he offered “had never had intercourse with a man.” You think he offered them as bridge players? But no, the mob wasn’t interested in the daughters. Maybe Lot even knew that they wouldn’t be and was somehow “buying time.” (it didn’t work) They said they were going to do WORSE to Lot than to his two guests. I don’t understand the significance you put on “doing WORSE.” There’s no crime so bad that I can’t imagine it being worse.
    And is not “yada” (taking your word for it that that is the Hebrew term) always linked with intercourse in the Bible? as in Genesis 4:1 and every successive instance? Are there any exceptions? So I think there’s little doubt as to what the guys had in mind.
    I already acknowledged that Sodom is not typical of any homosexual community I know of today. Theirs was pure, out and out, depraved lust. Are we to imagine that materialized angels were pot-bellied, balding, and knock-kneed? They were good-looking guys, no doubt, not like the local slobs. This observation, I think, is enough to answer your question “as I asked before, what would nearly an entire city want from two mere strangers that they, the city, couldn’t provide to each other?” We’re not speaking of homosexual love, in this case. We’re speaking of homosexual lust.
    As to Freud, my post made no mention of right or wrong from his point of view, only “abnormal,” and ‘stemming from childhood.’ The quotation you’ve provided agrees with that assessment: “we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.” ‘Arrested development’ does not imply that all is normal.

    Reply
  13. Tru Agape Avatar
    Tru Agape

    tomsheepandgoats:
    I’m sorry but you are lavishly consumed with an interpretation that presumes your own bias over the clear and simple facts of the story itself – the story as it is presented, referenced, and literally captured within all the pages of scripture.
    I won’t take the time to answer your question about “yada” and it’s references as its used throught scripture. I know the answer but have the feeling (as your latest post shows) that you will find a way to interpret your own pleasure within that. You have the same access I have available to me to inform yourself to yada and its scriptural references. But in the mean time if you choose to utterly dismiss the unchangable facts of both scripture and history in lieu of your own perception as influenced by the imginations of those outside of scripture, we’ll that is your choice. And consequently, for scriptural reasons, I definately can not respect that.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to tom sheepandgoatsCancel reply

More posts

Discover more from Sheep and Goats

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading