Re Stacy L. Harp's "A Call to the Men of God to Stand".
By Letters To The Editor Ken McEvoy (02/21/06)
Up until around 100 years ago, there was significant discrimination against those those who were left-handed. Part of this came from the church, since it is stated in Leviticus that those who are left-handed are not fit to be priests. Part of it came from the education system, that punished those who tried to write with their left hands. The very vocabulary of many languages exhibited discrimination against the left-handed (the Latin 'sinister' and French 'gauche'). With a greater understanding of the origins of left-handedness, this discrimination has substantially diminished. Although it is true that left-handedness is "unnatural" - in the sense that it is exhibited only by a minority of the population - most people do not discriminate against the left-handed, and I'm not aware (although I could be surprised) of any religious denomination that still forbids the left-handed from serving as priests or ministers.
There is no gene for left-handedness. It is currently felt that although there may be a genetic predisposition to left-handedness, it is only during fetal development that handedness is actually determined, and that by the time of birth, handedness is "fixed". However, handedness is not binary; a person is not absolutely left-handed, or absolutely right-handed, but exists somewhere on a spectrum of handedness. Most people are very strongly right-handed; a few are strongly left-handed. Others are somewhere in the middle; possibly ambidextrous, or slightly favoring one side or the other.
Those who are not at one extreme or the other, can usually learn the behavior that is the opposite of their inclination. In other words, someone who is born with a preference for the left hand (but who is not strongly left-handed) will usually be able to learn to use their right hand for most activities - including writing - if they so wish.
Why do I mention all of this? Because the current understanding of sexuality and the development of sexual preferences shows that it works almost exactly the same way as handedness. Although there is no "gay gene", there appears to be a slight genetic predisposition to homosexuality in some cases. However, it also appears that the wiring of the brain for sexual preference happens during fetal development, at the same time and in the same way that handedness is wired into the brain. As with handedness, sexual preference is not binary; it is a spectrum. Most are strongly heterosexual, a few are strongly homosexual, and the remainder are scattered in between. For those in between, there is a choice; just as the ambidextrous can learn to write with either hand, the "ambisexual" (or bisexual) can develop satisfactory relationships with either their own or the opposite sex. But for those who are strongly homosexual, just as for those who are strongly heterosexual, switching is simply not possible.
Just to be clear, I am an older, straight male - happily married for over 25 years, and with grown children. I was born straight (and right-handed), and nothing could ever change me. I am also a Christian, and I have been very active in the life of my church for over 20 years. My church is an affirming congregation, welcoming all into the love of Jesus. You say that it's astounding to you that "many churches have embraced the lie of the gay agenda". What's astounding to me is that so many Christians can't hear Jesus' message of abundant love. There is no radical "gay agenda"; gays simply want the same love, acceptance and rights as those given to straight persons. To me, and I hope to an increasing number of others, it is not reasonable, fair, or just to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation any more than it was fair in the 19th century to discriminate against those who were left handed.
Ken McEvoy
(Printer friendly version) Email: Letters To The Editor
