IN THEORY:Do teachings on homosexuality need to be revisited?

Many religious leaders and traditions do not need to revisit their stances because they already call for genuine love and respect for gay and lesbian people. They do not characterize sexual activity between people of the same sex as immoral, but they support equal rights and they advocate an end to discrimination.

It is a serious problem in our nation when the religious views of one or some traditions continue to be presented as if they are the only valid ethical or moral teachings, or that they somehow represent religion or faith. The truth is that there are differing positions both between religions and within religions.

If new evidence will prompt a change in the ethical teachings of those religious leaders who preach that homosexual activity is immoral, it should be welcomed. But it seems that every few months, there is a new study about the role of genetics in some aspect of life, whether addiction, mental illness or gender differences.

Usually, the results are suggestive rather than conclusive. I wonder at what point the evidence that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait would be considered so irrefutable that it could change the minds of those who adamantly claim that homosexual activity is immoral.

Awareness of “nature versus nurture” and “determination versus free will” should already inform our understanding; there is a complex interplay between the influence of biology (what we are born with) and environment (how our society and learning shapes us). The reasonable possibility that homosexuality might be genetic in some people has not thus far tempered the views of some, but we can hope that increasing evidence and growing awareness may lead to positive changes.

In Zen, each person is called to realize and express his or her true self, sometimes referred to as “Buddha nature,” whether gay or straight. There is nothing in the Zen tradition to prohibit or disparage same-sex orientation, sexual activities, relationships or marriage, whether it is genetically inherited or a choice of lifestyle.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. (Leviticus 18:22).

The only thing that is clear in Judaism about this verse is that it speaks only of male homosexual sex. Sex between lesbians is not considered in the Biblical commandment. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned because females cannot act as males can because of the absence of male biological parts. Females cannot even try to reproduce babies together physically.

The best example of this is when the two angels come into Sodom and the menfolk want to have sexual relations with them. Hence, the term “sodomy” is born. Biblically, it is prohibited by God.

Talmudic sources permit two bachelors to sleep under the same blanket together “because Jews are not suspected of engaging in homosexual relations.” Today, there are four general approaches to homosexuality in recent writings: the textual, the historical, the biological and the moral. Thus writes Rabbi Dorff in the JPS edition of the book “Matters of Life and Death,” chapter six.

Textually, homosexuality is prohibited on the basis of cleanliness of two men coming together in the only way they can. Judaism prohibits any contact to try to reproduce in this manner. It is a great sin. Biologically, it is impossible to reproduce. In modern Judaism, two gays and two lesbians becoming parents through adoption is sanctioned by many rabbis.

However, families created by gay and lesbian parents are clearly different from those run by heterosexual parents. Historically, there are no examples I could find in my research to prove that a child from either type of family adopted would turn out any different in each family.

Finally, emotionally, Rabbi Artson — who used to be the conservative rabbi in Mission Viejo — states, “We should sanctify loving monogamous homosexual sex, just as we sanctify the same kind of heterosexual sexual relationship in marriage.”

My own ethics and morals teach me, by rational definition, to disagree with him. I do not want any child in school to know they have a choice in mates between male and female. I see homosexuality as an ongoing phenomenon that splits the community and that many see as normal and many see as abnormal behavior. I do not see a change in viewpoint of either factions in the near future from either point of view.

There is a difference between accepting and sanctifying such unions; I accept homosexuality as an alternative, viable lifestyle, but I do not sanctify it (which would make it holy).

RABBI MARC S. RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach

Of course! I think we should consistently examine and re-examine what it means to be ourselves and discover others to be with in regard to faith, religion, gender, ethnicity, nationality, social preferences, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and so on. Among the questions we should ask is this: “Is this God-given or is it personal choice?”

Among the blessings God has graciously given me, a heterosexual Caucasian man, are the great gifts of love of family and friends, faith in Jesus as the human life of God, participation in the Episcopal Church, where I am encouraged to think for myself and pray to God, a home in Corona del Mar, where I enjoy life in ways few human beings on this earth can imagine, and citizenship in this great country, where I am responsible for my own choices about issues like political perspectives and commitments in personal relationships.

When wondering what is equally true for others, I try to keep aware of truths such as that in one of the prayers we said at our Peace Mass last Tuesday morning: “God, help us to remember that there are people who choose to call their neighbor ‘stranger,’ reject the world and dwell within suspicion in agonizing ignorance of their need of you.”

At this time of thanksgiving, are we grateful for all the ways God has blessed us and for gifts God has given to others?

(THE VERY REV’D CANON) PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

From a Muslim perspective, the act of homosexuality is forbidden. The Koran is clear about this issue in several verses (Koran 7:80-81 and 26:165-166); even more, the Koran illustrates what became of societies that practiced it (Koran 11:81-83).

Thus, there is no dispute among Muslim scholars that the act of homosexuality is not permitted, hence there is no reason for Muslims to readdress their stance on homosexuality.

Whatever scientists discover “new” about homosexuality as being inherent or otherwise, still it will not negate the Islamic injunction against acting upon it. However, this does not mean that the subject should not be discussed or advice given. Islam looks upon life as a trial. God tells us that he will test us in many ways but never more than we can bear. This is the hope that gives us strength when faced with trials.

IMAM SAYED MOUSTAFA AL-QAZWINI

Islamic Educational Center

of Orange County

Costa Mesa

I read the article by Buzz Thomas, and I would not recommend someone following the teachings of someone who obviously doesn’t know how to study Scripture. He takes “sound bytes” from Scripture here and there to try to prove his point.

This is often the case for people who want to sound Biblically savvy, but the way they use the Scriptures betrays their ignorance. Any Bible teacher with an ounce of integrity will tell you that Scripture must be interpreted within its context and that isolated proof-texts is a poor Scriptural practice.

That being said, I do think it’s time for religious leaders to revisit their stance on homosexuality, not because it needs to change but because the “Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” mind-set is unfair to Scripture and to anyone who needs an answer to this or any issue. The Bible has clear principles that apply, and we need to understand those issues, not just proclaim ignorance.

Mr. Thomas is the under the impression that homosexuals should get treatment that the Bible doesn’t afford to heterosexuals or anyone else. Whether science proves homosexuality is genetic is irrelevant. I can name a list of people who are heterosexual and lust for people of the other sex, and yet they still need to make a choice to follow God’s commandments or not.

I can name another list of people with gluttony issues, and they also need to make choices to be obedient or not. A whole host of issues, including alcoholism (some say it is a genetic disease) and adultery, are problems people are born with and have to make choices about on a daily basis. They have to choose to obey their own desires or God’s. He said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” I do not condemn or judge as that is not what I am called to do, but I will do my best to give you Biblical answers to these issues.

There is a train wreck on the horizon for any pastor who uses the Scriptures the way Thomas does and cannot rightfully teach Scripture. There is no train wreck ahead for those who rightly understand and teach Scripture because Thomas’ arguments don’t apply.

RIC OLSEN

Lead Pastor

The Beacon

Anaheim

Most Humanists clearly support the science that shows that homosexuality is a natural part of existence and not some kind of evil choice. The rabid-right and religious hate mongers — who claim to be Christians — would do well to follow Jesus’ lead and never say anything on the subject!

JERRY PARKS

Member

Humanist Assn. of

Orange County

Religious faith has consistently proven uncongenial to scientific discoveries, digging in its heels at every breakthrough that threatens to undermine inherited moral certainty.

Luther called Copernicus a “fool” for promoting a heliocentric view of the universe and denied the earth’s sphericity. After all, he said, “Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.”

John Calvin asked, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?” citing Psalm 93: “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.” Centuries intervened between Galileo’s endorsement that the earth revolves around the sun and the Church’s apology for persecuting him.

Today, despite incontrovertible evidence of the earth’s hoary age, many of the faithful proclaim its recent vintage. Darwinism was resisted as an affront to human dignity. In the Scopes trial, Clarence Darrow, arguing against Biblical veracity, may have made William Jennings Bryan appear foolish to many, but not to Bryan himself, nor to his followers.

Demonstrating that genetic and neurological factors establish and develop homosexuality will hardly dissuade those whose allegiance to “God’s Word” dictates a denouncing of homosexuality.

Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 will trump any scientific paper. Pronouncements of “normal” emanating from a laboratory will be dismissed as inferior to a Scriptural judgment of “abomination.” Claiming that homosexuality is a natural development will not sway those who are convinced it is a perversion of human nature that flouts God’s will. “Thou shalt not” is more persuasive to many than “I’m OK, you’re OK.”

There are multitudes of the faithful who could never accept a biological component of homosexuality without surrendering something too dear to relinquish: Biblical truth.

Maintaining that homosexuality is a personal choice renders the homosexual as so many believe him to be: morally culpable. A scientist who argues for determinism is guilty, according to many, of arguing against God. Science cannot address sin.

The Bible tells the believer all he needs to know about the essence of man.

Rev. Oliver Thomas says the following is an announcement from religious leaders that we will never read: Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God’s followers. Many a preacher’s interpretation of Scripture remains impervious to results of scientific investigation and will not admit that homosexuality is anything other than a moral failing. After all, if a homosexual identity can no more be chosen than one can choose his parents, how could the Bible prohibit it?

Those who subscribe to a religious tradition that condemns homosexuality as a violation of Divine intentions would say it is better to discriminate against gays and lesbians than to discriminate against God. But if they take Leviticus 18 as inerrant, perhaps they should flip a few pages back to Leviticus 11 and put down that ham sandwich, take off that lobster bib, and start buying their steak at the kosher market.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach