praying the gay away

I just watched the episode of the new TV series, Our America with Lisa Ling, called "Pray the Gay Away?". Basically, it covers the idea that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive and inquires how those who find themselves with this intersection of identities deal with it. It follows two main communities, the first being Christians who have identified homosexual feelings in themselves, but believe it is a sin, and are therefore trying to become straight and live out "God's best plan" for them. They do this, in part, through participating in conferences like "Exodus," which try to teach them that if they just pray hard enough, just love God enough, they will at least be able to resist acting upon their homosexuality, if not completely dissolve it. The second community this episode follows is comprised of people who believe that their identity as Christians is not in conflict with their homosexuality and that God loves them just the way they are. They participate in summer camps and other support networks that are Christian-centered, while also in celebration of their "true selves."

Now, as someone who hasn't considered myself religious for a long while, and who is confidently agnostic, it is easy for me to feel that "praying the gay away" is a total crock that essentially convinces people to suppress who they are and how they feel, out of sheer reverence to guilt, shame, and fear of damnation. I absolutely refuse to believe that, if God exists, she/he would harbor hatred for those who are acting upon natural tendencies that do not inherently harm anyone. However, the question Lisa Ling was hoping to address is why people would believe this. I appreciate that she is tackling such a controversial topic via such a mainstream media outlet, and I generally found the show fascinating and non-judgmental. However, I really don't think she got to the root of why certain Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful. Of course, she mentioned the fact that they reference six biblical passages as "evidence" of the sinfulness of homosexuality, but for me, this merely grazed the surface. The real question for me is: Why is a literal interpretation of the Bible so essential to people's faith? As someone who grew up Catholic, going to Catholic schools, and learning about scripture in an academic setting, I never understood how the Bible could possibly be interpreted literally. I studied scripture at the college level, and even at a Jesuit Catholic institution, it was taught that most of the Bible can be understood symbolically, without nullifying the basic principles and morals of Christianity. Personally, I believe that the Bible is a historical text, written by human beings, and therefore a product of its time--not a product of divine inspiration. However, acknowledging that there are many people who do believe it is divinely inspired, I desperately want to understand how they reconcile this belief with the fact that a good portion of scripture is hateful and contradictory to other modern cultural ethics. If anyone reading this is a Christian who takes scripture as divine truth, I honestly want to know why this is essential to your faith in God, Jesus, and your desire to be a good human being?

I also think the debate over whether homosexuality is biologically or socially determined (or both, for that matter) is completely irrelevant to how those who identify as such should be treated. Does biology have to dictate the amount of respect and love one receives? I was born with blue eyes; does that mean someone who wears blue contacts should be less accepted by God than I am? By the same token, I was socialized to be afraid of spiders; does that mean my fear of spiders is any less real for me? I can tell you, I am just as much afraid of spiders as if the fear had been written in my DNA, and I don't think it means I should devote my entire existence to eradicating my fear of spiders. There was a woman in the Our America episode who has "exited" her life as a lesbian and supposedly become a heterosexual through her faith in God's "plan for her." She mentioned in the follow-up conversation to the episode that there is no biological evidence for homosexuality and that she believes her lesbian tendencies came from the abuse she experienced as a child, at the hands of men. My response to that is: okay, maybe your homosexuality was derived from these experiences, but as long as you have sought help for dealing with the trauma of the abuse, then why does it matter? There are plenty of gay people who haven't been sexually abused, and there are plenty of people who have been sexually abused who do not become unattracted to the gender of their abusers. The nature or nurture argument doesn't get us anywhere because it doesn't address the fact that all human beings deserve to feel that who they are is legitimate. I realize that we don't seek to legitimize pedophiles, for example, but I think it's entirely different when we're talking about those who act upon inclinations that do not directly harm another.

Ok, I'll get off my soap box now. Sorry this post isn't as jocular as my other ones, but I thought that would detract from the seriousness of this topic. Please feel free to post comments--I really want to continue this conversation with someone other than myself--and thanks for reading!