A friend recently asked for my thoughts on this question, and this was my response. I certainly can't speak for people with same-gender attraction, but I have had a few thoughts about what happens when we talk about them in these terms.
Sure, the alcoholism comparison works to the extent that it implies the homosexuality is biological, but it breaks down pretty quickly. A couple of reasons for why I wouldn't use it:
1) When we're talking about homosexuality, we're talking about a totally different sort of desire than what alcoholics have. Sexuality is, for better and/or for worse, a key motivation in much of our decision making and much of the way we interact and relate with people, especially people we love. Like you say, it's different than alcoholism in that homosexuals have the urge whether they've "tasted" it or not, but, to take it step further, we're talking about a drive inherent in the human experience and the propagation of the human species. Sure, it's problematic that homosexual sex doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that we're dealing with a much more powerful, inherent urge than a strong taste for alcohol. It's also important to remember that while we believe we will overcome all temptation eventually, our sexual desire is not ultimately thought of as temptation. It can be a source of temptation, but more fundamentally, it is a power to be harnessed and expressed within the bonds of marriage, not suppressed indefinitely. No one is encouraging alcoholics to settle down and find a person with whom they can appropriately express their alcoholism.
2) I'm also hesitant to use the analogy because of the more subtle impact it has on dialogue (internal and external). It is a very divisive way to talk about people. It might be helpful for us to conceptualize why gay people do what they do, but alcoholics have a problem (and can usually admit it). They know that alcohol clouds their judgment, ruins their relationships, and so they try to quit. Homosexuals--especially outside the church--have nothing telling them that what they're doing is hurting themselves or other people. We're telling them that they're living "inebriated" so to speak. While alcoholics tend to be incapable of being upstanding, productive members of society, that is absolutely not the case with homosexuals. Some of the most talented and inspiring people I know are gay. This is all a little heady--it's not like this all runs through people's minds when the alcoholism comparison is used--but using analogies that alienate people and describe them in terms they certainly would not use to describe themselves only creates distance and derisiveness. When we talk about homosexuality like a disease and then try to make laws that limit the people who have it, why are we surprised at people who picket the temples or make vitriolic attacks on the church in the media? I'm not saying the Church didn't make the best decision it could have made with Prop 8--honestly, I think its most redeeming consequence is the fact that we and others are having this conversation--but until gays and church members are talking about gayness using the same terms, we'll never get anywhere.
Honestly, I think all the analogies are a little dangerous, because they all break down at some point, and they're all a little condescending. I've heard comparisons to alcoholism, people who'll never marry, handicapped people, drug addicts, etc. But, again, we have to think of what speaking in analogy does to the way we think about people and how they would react our speaking about them like that. Who wants to defined by analogies? Who would want to be categorized and discussed in terms of someone else's problems or tendencies? No one would. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if someone said, "Bryce's tendency to be a passive-agressive jerk is analogous to (insert negative stereotype)..." Sure I can use those analogies when I talk about myself, but when other people start trying to fit me into some conceptual box, I'm going to get a little defensive. We all want to be known and treated for who we are. Sure, the church has to make policies and delineations and limits, but you and I don't. We just need to see homosexuals as human beings and treat them as such.
Bryce I really appreciate your discussion as well as your point that homosexuality is not, in any way, comparable to a disease such as alcoholism.
ReplyDeleteLet me take it a step further however with your conclusions. Sexual orientation, including both homosexuality and heterosexuality is about much more than just simple sexual desire. Would a straight man say that his attraction to women is purely sexual? That his only desire in regards to women is sex?
I would venture to say no. Our attractions are rooted in something much deeper than simple physical behavior, but a desire to share that special, unique, and defining connection with another human being. To overcome the solitary and find that wonderful comfort and joy that can only be had through true love.
So while a heterosexual man or woman may only be able to find that connection, or even imagine that connection with a member of the opposite sex - there are also those who can only find it with a member of the same sex.
We live in a world of boxes, and it is hard to imagine something other than what we know ourselves, but people who are homosexual do not make a choice to be with members of their own sex, they are genetically and biologically created that way.
As to your comments about the LDS Church and Prop 8, I am one of those who has organized many protests against the LDS Church here in Utah. But I want to make my intentions clear, I do not hate the Church. I do not want to see it torn down, or Wards closed. Most importantly, I do not want to see a law created which forces any religion to change its doctrine.
When I protest, I do so because the LDS Church has irrationally and unnecessarily interfered with the lives of those who have nor part in the religion. While the LDS Church and I disagree this matter, no Church should ever think to force their beliefs to be canonized into civil law. If the LDS Church does not wish to marry same-sex couples in their temples, that is their freedom not to do so. But what gives a religion the right to seek to prevent others from going to a courthouse and declaring their love?
I am extremely grateful for your thoughts and respectful tone Bryce. It is too often lacking in this world, although desperately needed.
Sincerely;
Eric Ethington
Thanks for the clarification. It's an angle I'd never really considered. I think others will appreciate it too.
ReplyDeleteEric is on to something oft overlooked in the analogy of alcoholism. Many seem to want to boil homosexuality down to the part they consider the most offensive--the sex. What this does, in essence, is two things:
ReplyDeleteFirst, it not-so-subtly categorizes gays and lesbians as 'being broken' in some way, afflicted, in need of soul mending--which in turn allows many to not only be able to dismiss gays and lesbians, but also to dismiss their own prejudices and unkind behavior to them. After all, if they're a broken brand of human, then we can in some ways feel removed from and therefore superior to them on the plane of life.
Second, it completely excuses individuals from having to do any deep critical thinking to understand that *sexual orientation* is very complex psychologically--the exact same as it is for heterosexual orientation. But, if we can reduce it to its most prurient component, then we can not only condemn it as a sickness, but we also don't have to any further work to get our heads around what life is really like for gay and lesbian individuals.
Bottom line, that kind of thinking doesn't help homosexuals at all. It helps heterosexuals stay quietly in their protected shell, able to ignore science, and gives them an excuse to not have to learn anything new, and tacitly provides license to look at gays and lesbians as "less than." It is one of the components of a larger school of thought I call "the heterocentric view of homosexuality." Written to help them, not gays and lesbians.
So yes, it is indeed helpful--helpful for trying to avoid deeper intellectual work and admit that those who subscribe to this might, in fact, be very wrong, indeed.