The Ellen Controversy Revisited

It’s just about over for heterosexual sex. I blame Jerry Falwell. If the Christian blunderbuss hadn’t called on what he modestly refers to as “my vast network of friends” to boycott the coming-out episode of “Ellen,” the show would never have received all that publicity. Was the Rev. Mr. Falwell secretly working for ABC or some gay alliance when he sent out a steady stream of tantalizing updates on the show to 140,000 pastors and their 60 million members? Talk about opening a virgin market. You can’t buy publicity like that, and as a result, “Ellen” swept the sweeps. Straight sex is in big trouble.

If Falwell was right, we have to assume that the 42 million people who ignored his dire warnings and watched the episode all have succumbed to the lesbian lifestyle. At least the womenfolk--and it’s hard to have heterosexual sex without them. Why wouldn’t they convert? Ellen “Degenerate,” as Falwell called Degeneres in one of his typical displays of Christian charity, turned out to be enormously appealing and wholesome, funny and attractive and, as opposed to most male TV stars, capable of polysyllabic conversation.

There is a bright side to this for family-values conservatives. Lesbian sex advances the goals of their sexual abstinence campaign to prevent the spread of AIDS while reducing teenage pregnancies. I would bet the farm that the incidence of pregnancies among teenagers who practice lesbian sex exclusively is quite low.

Lesbian sex is safe sex. By the same measure, those like Falwell who insist that the AIDS epidemic reflects a divine punishment of homosexuality should celebrate lesbian sex as divine beneficence.

“Ellen” gave ABC its best performance among adults 18 to 49 for a single episode in more than three years. This should delight health professionals, who know that people from 18 to 49 account for most of the sexual activity in this country. A turn to lesbian sex bodes very well indeed for the national interest.

Lesbians also tend to couple up, cutting down on promiscuity. As the joke goes, “What does a lesbian bring to the second date? A U-haul.” And lesbian bookstores provide the best erotic literature encouraging auto-eroticism, the safest sex of all.

Lesbian sex is an effective distraction for traveling businessmen who might otherwise be tempted to endanger their marriages and their health by cavorting with prostitutes. Instead, they march directly up to their rooms after dinner and turn on the adult videos that in the better hotels mostly feature lesbian sexual activity.

They could turn to the Gideons’ Bibles in most hotel rooms. The “Ellen” episode has definitely enhanced Bible study, if my perusal of the Internet is typical. Some on-line theologians cite Leviticus’ reference to the “abomination” of men lying with men. But others point out that could be taken to indicate approval of lesbian sex, since there is no explicit prohibition of women lying with women.

But the Rev. Jerry Smith in his column on America Online warns modern folk to be wary of invoking the “abomination” standard since it includes such acts as children talking back to their parents, wearing cloth made of two materials, shaving and using a scale that gives false weights. Eating crustaceans is also an abomination, so for some it could be a trade-off: eat a lobster or have gay sex.

Oppressing the poor and needy is also termed an abomination, so clearly Falwell and some other right-wing Christians are capable of looser interpretations of scripture when it suits their purpose.

Being way over my head on these matters, I called up the Rev. George Regas, my favorite Episcopal priest, for a third view. He was late for dinner but offered the following:

“When the Bible condemns homosexuality, it is speaking about rape, incest, prostitution and cruelty, which is also sinful for the heterosexual. And there is not a single word from the lips of Jesus about homosexuality. The really serious problem for the people of the Book is not how to square homosexuality with certain biblical passages that appear to condemn it, but rather how to reconcile rejection, prejudice, hostility and punishment of homosexuality with the unconditional love of Christ.”

Sounds right to me, but Regas’ most compelling argument was one that I can confirm from my own secular observation: “Homosexuality in the vast majority of cases is a condition that is given and not chosen” and must therefore be honored as part of the natural order of things.

Which of course is the point that that brave but otherwise silly sitcom was trying to make.