1 WHAT CREATION REVEALS REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY By Bernard C. Baumbach, Ph.D.

2013 Prologue The span of human history is replete with instances of diverse dispositions regarding issue of homosexuality. Continuing from the earliest of recorded history down into the present era, we are able to witness continuing consternation over this phenomenon within societies throughout the world. In our society, scientific, religious, and political institutions are variously engaged in serious debate regarding the integrity of homosexuality as a component of society. Many of these disputes generate vociferous, if not violent, negativism. These failures to reach at least minimal degrees of accommodation, if not reconciliation, have probably been due to the absence of reliable, scientifically-base evidence. What is vociferously present, however, is the preponderance of faith-driven biases encased in questionable religious traditions. By and large, the most egregious of these disputations are located within the contexts of religious and moral concerns. The distortion that the topic of homosexuality suffers in these contexts is primarily due to the failure of the discussions to insist upon a point-of-origin that is scientifically respectable; that is, to first establish a definition and description of homosexuality which accords with its presence as an irrefutable fact of the Created Order. In spite of the sophistication of contemporary Western culture, homosexuality is rarely viewed first as a physiological/psychological phenomenon that has been a universally recognized phenomenon throughout the entire span of human history. Its existence as an established feature of the Created Order is further affirmed by the evidence amassed pertaining to that segment of the span of sexuality which is evident throughout the entire spectrum of human and subhuman life forms. As an integral component of the Created Order, it is the occasion for rejection, abuse, and suffering primarily because of a widespread failure to define and describe homosexuality dispassionately in terms of its clinical and genetic parameters. The resulting assault is generally driven by irrationally conceived perceptions that focus exclusively upon those sexual behaviors that are spuriously denigrated by religiously framed values upon those whose personal integrity is framed by this gender anomaly. It is, indeed, a gender anomaly insofar as 5% to 12% of all forms of animate life evidence the presence of homosexuality.

2 Most discussions today are mistakenly initiated from a theological or a moralistic perspectiveoften with political overtones. The physiological, the psychological, and the sociological dimensions which provide homosexualityas with every gender proclivitywith its substantive essence are ignored, if not dismissed. The more excoriating of such discussions tend to obscure, if not distort, the reality of this phenomenon. No discussion of the subject will ever achieve satisfactory resolution if there is no agreement at the outset as to what the actual nature of this physiological/psychological/sociological phenomenon actually is. The more vociferous of the debates generally are provoked via reliance on references found in the O.T. book of Leviticus and in the interpretation of selected passages in the Pauline epistles. The virtue of these proof-text resources rests upon faith-based assumptions which declare the Bible to be the authentic Word of God in every chapter, every verse, and every word. The fear that many religious faithful possess is that the acceptance of homosexuals into the Tent is an implicit challenge to the authority of the Bible. Apart from the Gospel of Jesus, if the existence of the Bible has confirmed anything, it has been that the Bible must, indeed and at the very least, be re-translated in succeeding generations. A lurking suspicion that renders such a proposal unthinkable throughout Christian orthodoxy is that it would enable the Bible to be so rewritten as to incorporate the evolutionary development of spiritual considerations emerging from evermore sophisticated biblical scholarship. The Word of God speaks to the People of God and these people, centuries in and centuries out, live in continually changing circumstances. The settings for the Word of God which provide the contexts for its proclamation as recorded in scripture have been quite different throughout each of the intervening periods of human history. Thus, those precepts which were applicable to the Children of Israel who once were held in bondage in Babylonthe very ones to whom the laws in Leviticus were originally addressedare now ignored by all manner of Christian assemblies and many reformed Jewish communities as well, except, for example, issues such as those which pertain to homosexuality. The efforts to reinforce the O.T. proscriptive disposition regarding homosexuality within the Christian faith, via references to St. Pauls Letter to the Romans, is an endeavor to resist contemporary processes that acknowledge the continuing Reformation of their own religion, an endeavor that many Christian assemblies are struggling to ignore. Scholarship emerging in recent decades has affirmed the distortion which, in its utilization of these references, the Christian Church has fraudulently provoked a sanctimonious intolerance of homosexuality as an abomination. If an unbiased analysis of the actual nature of homosexuality is never allowed to be a factor in the issue under discussion, there never will be

3 any accommodation, foreclosing any effort to achieve a reasonable disposition to this phenomenon which is an original and irrevocable factor within the Created Order. Evidences from all known societies and from studies of many of the animal species affirm that such a declaration is true. In simplest terms, once we acknowledge the physiological/psychological/ sociological truths of the phenomenon, the better we will be able to resolve any conflicts regarding the moralistic/ethical issues associated with all human relationships and all sexual behaviors. This Prologue is intended simply to be an exceedingly elementary and preliminary introduction to a scientifically oriented examination of homosexuality as a gender orientation. For all practical purposes, gender identity is not an issue within the purview of homosexuality as it is within transsexual phenomena. However, and with a nod in the direction of those for whom religious beliefs take precedence over all other forms of cerebration, I add the following statement before proceeding with the development of my thesis. I believe that In the beginning, God preexisted and was responsible for the original Big Bang some 13.7 billions of years ago. However, that which was present in that initial attosecond comprehended all of the resource potential necessary for everything that has evolved throughout the universe subsequent to the Big Bang including the evolutionary development of heterosexuality and homosexuality among all animate creatures. Irrefutable knowledge declares that homo sapiens evolved at a specific stage of an intricate process which, continuing into the present age, has produced the various mutations which have led to the development of humankind in its current configuration as well as the innumerable prior generations which now are only paleontological relics. It has now become universally accepted that all forms of organic existence share a common characteristic; namely, the biological integrity of each is the consequence of its respective genetic heritage, its subsequent mutation, and its consequent structure within the relevant parameters of the ecological environment in which each such phenomenon has been nurtured. Each normative feature of each organic specimen, together with each variation evidenced across the broad expanse of diversity manifest throughout each species, is in consequence of the genome resident in that species. Apparently, there is inter-genetic, as well as intra-genetic, communication wherein genes replicate themselves with or without variation and, in some instances, produce life-sustaining or life-modifyingor even life-endinggenetic modifications. Wherever it is manifested, Life is inclined to persist as an infinitely renewable phenomenon. All manifestations of flora and fauna, including all manifestations of homo

4 sapiens, are genetically engineered to possess the characteristic of gender, the mechanism essential tobut not absolutely restricted toreproduction. There are a few life forms in the flora category which do not possess sexual differentiation, but are nonetheless capable of reproduction. But field studies of animalsto say nothing about the sexual dispositions of human beingsreveal that sexual behavior is not exclusively confined to reproduction in all species. But, as has been observed wherever Life has been evidenced, each species manifests two basic patterns. As a matter of convenience only, I label the first as the Primary Pattern Characteristics (PPC) which provides a concrete and objectively-based categorical definition/description of the physiological features and characteristics which facilitate the specific role implemented in the reproductive potentiality for each member of the species. This is essentially that which is understood as gender identity. The other basic pattern I have labeled as Secondary Pattern Characteristics (SPC). This latter set of characteristics identifies features which exhibit the potentiality for variation within that particular species, but which do not compromise the essential reproductive integrity of the species. They are the societal norms which, as features of cultural definitions, assist in directing the socially assigned and normatively recognized status of all persons. As these definitions are internalized and are self-actualized, they provide the basis for each person, individually, to fashion a self-characterization centered in that persons orientation to his/her conceptualization of his/her own PPC. Thus, the SPC is a core element in the fashioning of the ultimately unique individual, thus establishing the essential integrity of the persona for each person. In some instances the set of SPC enhances the virtue of that which is normatively expressed via the PPC. In other instances, the set of SPC is crafted so as to diminish, if not contravene, the integrity of the PPC. Such conditions are often referred to as genetic disorders or genetic anomalies, possibly the consequence of miscommunication among relevant genes or, as has been recently revealed, the consequence of what is best identified as a decision to change on the part of a gene. This explanation, however, does not exclude those modifying consequences resulting from trauma imposed upon the person resulting from factors that were essentially instances of physical damage or disease or of psychiatric disorders or illnesses. However, with the passage of time, both pattern sets are subject to evolutionary change. It is in this sense that Life is eternal; or, from the perspective of a specific species and in the absence of non-supportive, if not destructive, circumstances, Life is infinitely renewable. We must assume, however, that the host environment continues to be supportive of such an existence. Furthermore, we need to be cognizant of the fact that the consequences of this process

5 are not necessarily exactly replicated in each successive reproductive cycleneither in the short term even as a micro-evolutionary process nor across myriads of cycles which constitute the long term or macro-evolutionary process. Because of the possibility of mutation, the resulting genetic configurations which ordinarily enable sexual behavior may or may not be reproductively effective. Furthermore, that which may be well defined as a feature of SPC in one cycleparticularly if such is actually an aberrant traitmay well acquire alternate definitions and differing degrees of significance, remembering that SPC are basically cultural phenomena in later generational cycles. Self-consciousnessnot exclusively a human trait nor a phenomenon of uniform commonality among all human and subhuman creatures possessing the sameincorporates a sense of gender identity with respect to PPC and gender orientation with respect to SPC. In this regard there are evidences throughout the span of fauna and homo sapiens of oft times seemingly radical SPC. With respect to gender identity (PPC) and gender orientation (SPC), the marks of homosexuality are discoverable in varying degrees. In all probability, homosexuality was evidenced in hominid creatures prior to the florescence of humanity as anthropology identifies it today. In other words, homosexuality has been a recognized phenomenon in every human society, both those known as well as in those societies back in time in eras for which there is little to nothing by way of recorded or residual physical evidence. Furthermore, zoologists acknowledge the presence of homosexuality within the sub-human animal kingdom, and in all likelihood, it is an aspect of their particular and peculiar PPC. The subhuman realm of the animal kingdom readily manifests instances of a type of knowledge that is recognized essentially as genus techniquethat which provokes and monitors species-specific behaviors. Their learning capacity, nevertheless, is a variable that is reflective of the variable complexity of their brains. However, although their capacity for learned knowledge is severely restricted, there is no way to assess their capacity for enhancing their genetically based proclivity for behavior associated with their own particular PPCs. That which remains an imponderable, however, is the issue of the possible transmission of an innovated patterns of specific PPC-related behavioral modifications to another member of their species. Although there may be instances of esoteric or anecdotal evidence presumptively affirming the behavior among subhuman creatures as a form of culture, in all probability it is not comparable to that manifest throughout homo sapiens. That which follows is a series of seven considerations which seek to give credence to the title of this paper.

6 [1] HOMOSEXUALITY: ROOTED IN THE BIG BANG? In all probability and at the initiating point of Creation (The Big Bang), God endowed the total universe with the potentiality for a maximized integrity for every subsequent facet so that each might become all that each facet ultimately could possibly become. This statement is neither a statement of fact nor does it presume that an agenda identifying all possible permutations throughout the Cosmos was operating deliberately and purposively. The writers of Genesis only state that upon review of that which God had created, God declared it to be good. Nothing is so stated as to suggest that the created Order was in its final or ultimate configuration. However, there has been the tendency to associate a moral connotation of finality (a teleologically established integrity) with the word good. Obviously, I doubt that that is what the authors of Genesis intended. Rather, goodness therein could be associated with the potentiality for wholeness and completeness (or in later Jewish theology, purity and holiness) so as to manifest an integrity at each of the innumerable stages of development yet to unfold. Unfortunately, the Genesis account has been represented as a backward evaluation of a set of circumstances in which early theologiansunwittingly and unknowingly because of their beliefs in a complete, fixed, and immutable state of the natural ordersuggested that everything existed originally in a state of perfection. It would be, literally, innumerable years before there would be any understanding of the Created Order as a complex system of equilibriums that, nevertheless, remain in a constant state of becoming. This perspective, for me, best represents everything that God accomplished, making possible even everything which has yet to be manifested throughout the future of the universe. Within each facet, form, and feature of creation there is the potentiality to become any measure ofif not totallythat which conceivably lies within the parameters of an infinite span of possibility for every species of flora and fauna and for each kind of ecological system within which every form of life resides.1 Thus we see that Creation is, indeed, an ever-evolving process; that Creation is a phenomenon in progress in each and every one of its innumerable manifestand latentfacets. And, finally, Creation is a never-ending phenomenon whose dynamic quality will cease only whenand this may well be a statement of utmost fantasythe entire universe, known and unknown, is reabsorbed into nothingness; a gigantic cosmic implosion that, in a process of inversion, mirrors the phenomenon of the Big Bang. Actually, however, from a human point-of-view, that would be quite impossible. Theologically, such is often presumed to have been foretold in the coming of a new heaven and a new earth
1

The same dynamics can be applied both to the geological systems and the astronomical systems that round out the totality of the universe. But such a consideration is not germane to this essay.

7 (Revelations 21:1). Therein is the suggestion that it would be an instantaneous event. However, there is the possibility that, in contradiction the expectations of St. Pauls Thessalonians and many contemporary Christians, the procedure would be one of indefinitethat is, of eternal extension. The fact of the matter is, however, that the physical evidence in support of the most probable future disposition of the universe is that it will continue to evolve ad infinitum and without the religious accoutrement suggested in the final book of the N.T. [2] THE INFINITE PERSISTENCE OF LIFE. The miracle of life is persistently pervasive throughout the whole of Creation. Indeed, it exists in structures, forms, places, and processes many of which have become known but recently. In consequence of the achievements of human knowledge, we now have a better understanding of the actual age of the Universe and the more junior status of planet Earth. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that mankind has, or will ever have, complete access to the knowledge of every place wherein the Creator has embedded the seed of life. This fact suggests that the seed of life is undoubtedly resident not only within known bio-structures, forms, and processes, but also within those which are yet unknown structures, forms, and processes out there somewhere, down there somewhere, and deep inside there somewhere. These are those evidences of the working of the Spirit of God which have been manifested, are now being manifested, and/or will someday become those manifestations which presently are beyond our knowledge and which may well remain eternally beyond human ken. I find it more than interesting that within the field of astrophysics the phenomena of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are being studied. What is spiritually enticing is the observation that these phenomena are the most prevalent phenomena within the Universe. Within these two phenomena one discovers a possible substantive nursery for propagating the seed of life. Might it not be that out of Dark Matter which, it is theorized, constitutes fully 80% of the Universe and that out of Dark Energy which, it is theorized, constitutes approximately 75% of the Universe, one also discovers a way by which we might characterize the Mark of The Spirit. Significantly relevant is the fact that, with respect to humanity, there may be possibilities for further development which have yet to be recognized, much less, anticipated; developments which may well introduce dimensions of the human character which presently are unfathomable, but which are patently potential within the parameters of the human genome as it now exists. However, without ever speculating as to what developments might emerge in consequence of the

8 genome facilitating mutation to one degree or another, it is has been scientifically validated that there has always been a persistently active factor in the evolutionary development of every organismic species. Indeed, up to the present, evolutionary changes in human physiology have been recognized after the fact in spite of the contributory involvement of human actions in its own evolution; i.e., consequences of improved conditions of health and nutrition. What is most certain, however, is that those potentialities that presently are unknown, nevertheless, are embedded within the endowment which is the genetic heritage of every life form, including human beings. Thus it will be, at some future moment and not necessarily subject to divine interdiction, that the fullness of time will assume an entirely new and expanded meaning and, to one degree or another, creation will ultimately fluoresce. The one inescapable characteristic of the Universe is that no part of it will ever achieve the status of faits accomplis. Contemporary writers of science fiction, utilizing incredible talents of creative imagination, have already presented us with ideological images and scenarios that suggest the nature of possible creatures, structures, and conditions of far off places at some future time. But, and this is not altogether surprising, those literary endeavors are generally supportive of a continually mutating astrophysical environment. [3] HOMOSEXUALITY AS A NATURAL PHENOMENON. It is disturbing to learn that throughout the span of human history, the phenomenon which came to be called homosexuality was not acknowledged as a facet of the natural order in spite of the fact that it was universally present in all known societies. Rather, it was regarded as an anomaly which was variously subjected to differing degrees of acceptance or discrimination, if not hostile repudiation. Homosexuality has been devastatingly misrepresented in both the O.T. and the N.T. (I will leave the details of this tragedy to others better schooled in the study of Holy Writ.) It is not an idle speculation that homosexuality would never have been acknowledged as a universally present phenomenon within the order of a divine creation had not sin first been ascribed as an integral component of human nature as understood in pre-scientific cultures. A respectable basis for understanding the phenomenon of homosexuality requires that important distinctions be made. As noted above, there are two separate, but interrelated, aspects of any sexual orientation. The more obvious facet is that of the physiological distinctions of gender and their structures and their respective functions (PPC, which is gender identity) which, if structured and functioning in a normative fashion, facilitate reproduction. The other facet pertains to cultural, the psychological, and the sociological aspects of gender recognition (SPC, which is

9 gender orientation). This latter category is far more diversified, and somewhat more ephemeral as well, than the initial dimension (PPC). These are the characteristics and the behaviors that cloak the individual with the content, context, and accoutrement that are normatively defined indicators of heterosexuality and homosexuality within a given society. But this is where we begin. First of all, homosexuality, exactly like heterosexuality, apart from ones particular genetic endowment of gender structure and function, is concerned with the gender orientation one has towards ones self. But because of SPC definitions, a differentiating status, albeit with respect to each specific gender, is typically assigned to each a person. Existentially, however, gender consciousness and ensuing relationships are rooted in the self-consciousness of the individual. This fact insulates the individual from the rigors of the standards which are the normative expectations associated with persons of that gender within ones given society. This type of issue is not addressed by the often-cited passages in scripture. Rather, references in both the O.T. (particularly Leviticus 18 and 20.10-21) and the N.T. (primarily Romans 1.24 and 1.2627) pertain to overt patterns of sexual behavior within contexts which presume a sinful, an illicit, if not a morally reprehensible intention or relationship. Indeed, such relationships of exploitation and abuse are discoverable within heterosexual relationships just as readily as they are uncovered within homosexual relationships. Predatory sexual proclivities are undoubtedly more prominent in the heterosexual community than among homosexual persons simply because of the preponderance of heterosexual individuals. However, the SPCs as catalogued for reference to homosexuality are often distinguished as deviant from the SPCs as catalogued for reference to heterosexuality inasmuch as the latter are generally regarded as the normative standard within that society. Hence, victimization is not as readily perceived in the heterosexual community although it might well be more prevalent. Please note that neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are necessarily monogamous. In King Davids marital experience, one learns of adultery and polygamy. However, within the culture extant within his society, only one of these activities of King David was labeled as evidencing an illicit relationship. The life of his son and successor to the throne was monumentally significant for many reasons, not the least of which was his ravenous implementation of polygamy. How could such a pattern of marital relationships not be deemed an instance of abomination in the face ofor so we are toldGods decree that in the marital relationship there should be but one man for each woman? And yet Solomons marital excesses

10 did not deter the Children of Israel from respecting, honoring, and celebrating his political, economic, religious, and regal achievements as King Davids successor. Contrary to some religious beliefs, patterns of sexual behavior and the legitimacy of marital couplings achieved their normative and moral parameters via cultural definitions within societies around the globe long before the appearance of the Children of Israel ever began their so-called forty-year trek in the Sinai. One can not reasonably and confidently assertalthough it is possible to do so as expressions of biases emerging from religious faiththat the various patterns of sexual behavior and patterns of marriage and family living which antedated the history of the Jewish nation were not in accord with the later appearing Hebrew law. Consequently, they were judged to be manifestations of sin. In other words, that which is considered to be appropriate overt sexual behavior and family systems, inasmuch as such have been present in the Created Order throughout all societies for millennia before the call of Abram, were both culturally relative and subject to the legal regulations of the existing societal/political structures. This is not to reject the significance of a religious foundation for marriage and family living. My point is simply that there were religious bases for marriage and family living in societies that preceded the emergence of the Hebrew nation; that there were cultural and civic norms regarding sexual behavior, marriage, and family living long before the time when Mosaic laws were originally compiled. It seems to be self-evident that, with the exception of a theocracy, the orderliness and general welfare of every society recognized the need to establish normative standards regulating the behaviors and the relationships of all of its members, with particular concern addressing the behaviors and the relationships between the sexes. The seemingly universal, but variously defined, concept of incest attests to this proposition. The designation within scripture to name same-sex coupling as grossly evil is patently religious, else it would not be a part of scripture. However, every element in every religious system is also culturally and ethnically specific. Within the Jewish community, primarily in consequence of the Priestly writings in Leviticus, sexual behavior on the part of persons of the same sex is emphatically defined as an abomination in all likelihood because of the Priestly effort to enforce cultural as well as religious separation between the Children of Israel and the Babylonians.. Such a judgment evoked revulsion without actually identifying in scripture why it is such a revolting evil. Ah, ha! It was perceived as another perversion that sin perpetrated upon the presumably pristine circumstances of the natural order in its original state. Was such an interpersonal relationship and subsequent behavior really so patently evil that it was defined as contrary to nature? Such a disposition presumes a complete and accurate knowledge

11 of the essence of nature which we can now affirm was factually defective in those postAbrahamic years. The Rabbis subsequently provided the absent rationalization. But nowhere within scripture is such information to be found. Only the judgmental declaration (abomination) and prescribed denunciations (religious dispositions) are presented. Within and throughout the vast expanse of the Created Order, who is to say what is natural and what is not natural? Is every instance of sexual intercourse to be morally validated only if the intention, if not the result, is reproduction? The reply within contemporary society would emphasize the role of sexual behavior in complementing and completing the interpersonal relationship in an activity that is emphatically intimate, albeit recreational, behavior.2 Zoologists have documented instances of recreational sexual activity even among sub-human species. If such phenomenon occurs, particularly if it does so repeatedly and consistently, how can it be judged to be unnatural particularly if it is also manifest among non-human species? In responding to the issue of homosexuality among human beings, any answer requires an appeal to the issue of the manner in which sexuality is integral to human nature and to the issue of the nature of the relationship which is antecedent to the sexual act, be that relationship homosexual or heterosexual. It is a grossly fallacious proposition that insists that same-sex coupling as a natural phenomenon is beyond any of the parameters of natural human sexuality. In the case of the orthodox Christian view of homosexuality, two issues fuel this conceptualization. The first is that sexual behavior was regarded exclusively as the essential procedure for procreation. This is a disposition which wasand in many instances, still is promulgated by the Church without the benefit of any scientifically respectable physiological, psychological, and sociological knowledge pertaining to sexual behavior. The second issue was that, in Hebrew thought, the semen was the only nascent agent in reproduction. Hence, the spilling of semen was tantamount to murderthe senseless destruction of pre-embryonic humans. This perspective later appeared as the religiously validated rationale for defining homosexual behavior as an abomination. But it must be remembered that the Priestly authors of the Book of Leviticus were intent on so directing the behavior of the Children of Israel while they endured their Babylonian captivity that their conduct as human beings should in nowise replicate the behavioral norms of the Babylonian society. In short, the Children of Israel were led to abhor any Babylonian belief or practice which, if implemented, if not adopted, would obscure the separatist integrity of their allegiance to the God of Abraham.
2

The extent to which this disposition has pervaded our culture has been more recently demonstrated in the proliferation of pharmaceutical interests in E.D. via products such as Viagra. Prior to the introduction of such products, the culture of contraception had long since validated societys recognition of the recreational dimension of sexual behavior.

12 It should also be notedand this is of prime significancethat homosexual behavior, as perceived by ancient Judaism, is essentially a male-oriented phenomenon. Whereas there are several O.T. references pertaining to the loathsomeness and the uncleanness of a man lying with another man as with a woman, the only explicitly reprehensible sexual behavior attributed to a womanand the man is not excused from this form of sexual behavioris that of her engaging in sexual behavior with an animal. In other words, there are no O.T. listings of homosexual relationships and behaviors which are now recognized and acknowledgedhence, labeledas lesbianism. Such a bias clearly supports the proposition that, in all probability, no one within the tent of Judaism truly understood the nature of the universal phenomenon of homosexuality. Although it is purely conjecture on my part, I would assume this disparity to be based upon the Judaic belief that the male sperm cell was regarded to be the singular nascent agent in reproduction. Small wonder, then, that phenomena such as male homosexual copulation, masturbation by males, and the patronizing of female prostitutes were so vigorously condemned. In this context, female is redundant. Male prostitutes, on the other hand, were common place figures among the upper classes in Greek and Roman society. One must conclude that within the ancient Jewish culture either female homosexuality was neither recognized nor acknowledged that is, whatever lesbians did must not have constituted unclean or impure behavioror, if it was recognized, it was acknowledged as having no significance with respect to the Judaic understanding of human reproduction. After all, the religion of Ancient Judaism was thoroughly rife with an essentially misogynist disposition. Hence, it was not (or, would not have been) defined as an aberrant behavior in defiance of the Purity Code as delineated in the Torah and the Talmud. It should also be noted that the O.T. prohibition regarding a man lying with another man as with a woman, actually addresses only one of four possible cognate propositions. The one just noted is the first. Should there not also be proposition #2 which would be the prohibition of a woman lying with another woman as with a man? Proposition # 3 would be a prohibition of a man lying with a woman as with another man. The 4th proposition would be a prohibition of a woman lying with a man as with another woman. The latter propositions#3 and #4are obviously beyond the scope of Judaic thought. Such propositions, however, can be found graphically articulated in the literatures of other Oriental cultures. I have stated these four propositions because they reflect the literal manner of sexual behavior. What is missing in each of the four is any reference to the nature of the relationship within which each participant regards

13 the partner. Even Martin Luther, in his explanation to the commandment on adultery, identifies the sin of adultery as the unfaithfulness of the husband or wife. In other words, that which is the essential virtue in sexual activity is the integrity of the relationship bonding the pair. Martin Luther excoriated the adulterous couple because of the broken relationship. He was not so explicit with respect to the actual sexual behavior to define it as sin. I would add that thisa violation of the 6th Commandment, according to the Christian compilationis so whether the coupling be of a heterosexual or a homosexual nature. True, only the first two of these four propositions are universally likely possibilities. However, these four propositions nevertheless provide a rational perspective regarding the possible range by which human sexual behaviors could be patterned. Several conclusions are possible, but one should prove sufficient for the present effort. The only realistic definition of that which is natural sexual behavior recognizes that all variations are possible given the physiological and psychological parameters of sexual behavior. I am not herein addressing the issue of that which is normative. Such a definition allows that any pattern of sexual behavior which human beings are capable of implementing, ipso facto, accords with natural predispositions. The Kama Sutra provides an amazing array for patterning sexual behavior. The catalog of only those patterns of sexual behavior that are socially approved is an issue of cultural and in this context, primarily religiousand normative definition, and is not one of nature. As a religious issue, a scriptural prohibition against homosexual behavior clearly addresses only a selective portion of the complete range of sexual behavior engendered via natural proclivity. The identification of sin as one of the integral parameters of sexual behavior is a religious endeavor that is inappropriately identified as superseding nature. Thus, human beings within certain religious communities are constrained to act in accordance with normative patterns while yet being in possession of the ability to implement what might be recognized as the capabilities of their nature to enact unrestrained behaviors. Regarding heterosexual behaviors, we are currently experiencing in our society such a relaxation of standards of propriety that we are scarcely outraged by publicly visible instances of fornication, adultery, pedophilia, incest, and rape. But note the difference. Even in those instances of heterosexual immorality, the behavior is immoral, but not judged to be an unnatural abomination. It is judged merely to be an aberration of naturalthat is, normatively prescribed heterosexual behavior. Thus, the persons in heterosexual relationships engaged in atypical sexual behaviors are characterized as deviants, but with the understanding that, at the least, they are not homosexuals. They are, after all, judged to be normal persons engaged in disapproved

14 of, if not immoral or criminal, behavior; unless, of course, they are declared to be suffering from some mental disease or psychiatric disturbance. This judgment, however, is often mitigated by re-labeling such activity in a less condemnatory fashion. Homosexual behavior, however, is popularly judged by conservative Christians to be an activity involving abnormal or deviant persons. The behavior from such a perspective is also judged as immoral or as an abomination. Confusions in perspectives also arise in those instances wherein heterosexual persons become engaged in patterns of sexual behavior more typically associated with homosexual relationships. Such are typically found within prisons wherein same-sex populations dominate. In other words, in those instances there are persons who are regarded normatively as heterosexual, in terms of PPC, become involved in homosexual behaviors. Are the behaviors of these prisonersin mens and in womens prisons alikeequally condemned as religiously relevant abominations? Sexual behaviors, when implemented by spousal partners or by consenting adults, which do not conform with normatively prescripted behaviors as to the social norms of propriety, decency, sensitivity, and/or mutuality are often regarded as indecent, vulgar, or obscene; hence, they also are declared to be sinful by members of many faith-based communities. Please note, however, that the acts of fellatio, cunnilingus, tres mnage, pederasty, sodomy, and pedophilia are variously defined as deviant patterns of sexual behavior and only selectively defined as immoral and/or criminal behavior. Any one of them can be implemented within a heterosexual context as well as a homosexual one. Again, victimization is the troubling issue. But that topic is beyond the scope of this essay. Unfortunately, many persons within contemporary Christian communities extrapolate the sinful designation of homosexual behavior among ancient Jews to encompass contemporary same-sex interpersonal relationships, defining such as evil. The point here is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships (here emphasizing the self-consciousness of gender orientation) must be differentiated from the overt homosexual and heterosexual behaviors. Two perspectives may assist in clarifying the relevance of making such a distinction. The first is the concern addressed in the Sixth Commandment. The issue central to the commandment does not examine heterosexual behaviors as to whether they are right and proper. Sexual activity itself is not subject to judgment; rather, it is the facetious nature of the relationship of the sexual partners that is the critical factor. Indeed, as noted above, Luthers explanation of this commandment emphasizes this issue in terms of fidelity or faithfulness as essential aspects of a relationship. Sinful sexual behaviorthe physical actwithin a

15 heterosexual arrangement is an interpersonal, social issue. Such behavior is sinful only in that it is an explicit manifestation of a broken relationship. Virtuous sexual behaviors within a heterosexual arrangement are presumed to be explicit manifestations of a loving relationship. What is not therein considered is that such sexual behavior may well be in consequence of egocentric desires on the part of either member of the wedded couple in spite of the fact that the oneness of their relationship no longer exists. Each needs the physiological and psychological satisfactions that the other is able to provide. Thus the couple maintains the marital arrangement purely for the physical and psychological pleasures each experiences as an individual. In such circumstances, the commitment one person pledges to the other is essentially a sham. And if the sexual needs of one partner do not accord with those of the other partner, then the sex act can assume the parameter of rape. The marital relationship of oneness, however, no longer exists. Ergo, the Sixth Commandment is essentially violated even though the marriage relationship persists only as a social arrangement. The comparable parameters within a homosexual arrangement are no different. In short, the violation of the mors pertaining to sexual behavior may devolve upon a single partner or upon both partners in the sexual activity. But again, this is as applicable to a heterosexual situation as it is to a homosexual one. A same-sex couple living together in an active relationship (implying whatever manner of sexual behavior is typical for them) and whose interpersonal relationship (implying a marital-like commitment to each other) is the primary factor in their bonding should not be the subject of prohibitive social judgment. Their sexual behavior as mutually committed, consenting adults does not deserve the condemnation of society in its political processes or that of the church which labels such to be an abomination. As noted above, the sexual behavior of a same-sex couple is but a segment of the spectrum of sexual behaviors which can be accessed by heterosexual couples as well. Although the subject of victimization is being circumvented in this essay, whenever a sexual encounter of a physical nature provokes social, economic, political, physical, or psychological abuse, it is also possible to damage, if not destroy, an otherwise virtuous relationship which had bonded the heterosexual or the homosexual partners. In this context we might agree, at the least, that the participants in such a situation have sinned against each other and may well have flaunted the social mors of the larger society. The second perspective is drawn from the animal kingdom, but it is not restricted to the world of sub-human primates. The arrangements for mating among all species are quite variable, indeed, as has been evident even when examining human societies past and present. Patterns of

16 copulation also have been recorded as being quite variable across the spectrum of all sub-human creatures. These creatures generally possess dramatically and distinctive identifying genderspecific (PPC) features which differentiate the sexes. Furthermore, it is patently evident that such features apparently instill a sense of gender identity as a prelude to the suggestion of the presence of a simplistic form of SPC. Nevertheless, field studies have recorded observations of that which is patently homosexual behavior. I do not wish to give this perspective undue significance. However, I have inserted it into this essay simply to demonstrate that the phenomenon of homosexual behavior is not something that is enacted only by evil-minded, morally corrupt, and abominably sinful human beings. It is, as this essay seeks to substantiate, a phenomenon totally consistent within the parameters set forth in Creation for the possibilities of behavior among those creatures possessing some semblance of self-consciousness. Obviously, within the lower strata of animate phenomena the significance of SPC is radically diminished. To recast all of this into a well-known context, a conclusion offered at this point is one which combines both relationships and procreation. That is, homosexual and heterosexual behaviors, when separated from cultural and ethnic particularities and perceived within the context of creation, are natural in that both of them are potentialities which are part ofhence, essential tothe natural orders so prominent within Creation. Homosexuality did not enter the world in consequence of human sin. It has always existed as an inescapable possibility for a particular style of genetically governed gender consciousness and, indeed, also possessing a very high probability for what can be described as homosexual behavior in the absence of any specifically heterosexually-driven style of gender consciousness. [4] HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE IMAGO DEI The presence of evil within the Created Order is not something that emerged simply in consequence of human behavior that contradicted a decree announced by God in the Garden of Eden. It is my contention that evil exists simply because, in order for God to have provided the resources which human nature would require in order to be complete, this creature had to possess the potential for a full spectrum of possible characteristics in order that it might possess the freedom necessary to act in an independent, self-expressing, self-developing, and ultimately a self-conscious manner. This was to ensure that the human being would not become a robot or a puppeta mindless and conscience-less automatona creature whose behavior and being would be forever restricted to the rigidly proscriptive patterns of behavior characteristic of subhuman creatures whose existence is inescapably dominated by genus technique. Hence, the

17 human being acquired the potentiality for moving toward ultimate virtue while also possessing the capacity for moving toward ultimate evil. It would then be up to the individual to utilize, as that person individually determines, whatever characteristics seem best to suit the individuals disposition toward anything that becomes a factor within the realm of that persons experience. Such decisions represent an array of dispositions that, at one extreme, represent a personal affirmation of a relationship with God. At the other extreme, there is the opportunity for a deliberately personal decision to avoid, if not reject, such a relationship with God and, presumably, assumeto whatever degree such might be possible given the social nature of the human beingthe ultimate in radical independence. The in-between options are of an infinite range. In this context, the scriptural references to trespasses and sin are most appropriate. Basically, these terms mean to fall away, to stumble, or to misstep and to miss the mark or to be guilty of error respectively. Sin, as a verb, pertains to the quality of an action. In short, sin as a verb is the failure to achieve that which is desired and/or expected, if not required. This perspective, however, does not preclude the possibility of unsavory, if not immoral, consequences of that action. It is not a noun that would identify the quality of a being. In faith we hold that God has established performance standards for all life forms within His Creation which set the direction for probable pathways for an ever-evolving existence which affirms the integrity of PPC. At the other extreme, there is an evolving existence which moves toward alteration, modification, or even mutation for survival into the future. But in order for each to have completeness within each respective configuration, even that which is inimical to divine Holiness, everything that any life form might eventually become has to be initially incorporated as a potentiality. It is erroneous is assume that the passage, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5) refers to an acknowledgement of original sin.3 What the Psalmist was referring to is subject to a variety of questions. Indeed, the psalm itself is rife with evidences of paranoia, an obviously experienced phenomenon which probably first emerged with the dawn of self-consciousness, although it was not so understood in the Davidic culture. The concern here referenced, however, is to establish as a standard of creation the endowment of humanity with potentialities that ultimately are capable of destroying completely every capacity for virtuous behavior as well as those potentialities that affirm the imago dei.4 The manner in which a jealous God is portrayed as being active throughout many
33

The fact that it took the Christian Church over 300 years to establish original sin as official doctrine should give pause before arriving at such a conclusion. I have argued elsewhere that the imago dei comprehends the ultimate measure of evil, as well as that of the ultimate measure of virtue, in order to assureas stated abovethat the individual might truly possess the full integrity of the freedom of the will.

18 phases of the history of Israel would suggest the possibility of such an assumption. We must be cautious, however, in issuing such a judgment inasmuch as God does not self-characterize and certainly does not do so as a jealous God. Such an understanding about the nature of God is the result of a faulty translation. [5] THE FLUIDITY OF GENDER CHARACTERISTICS. The quality of gender is quite obviously an important aspect of the flora and the fauna of Creation. However, the phenomenon of gender is not absolutely fixed. That is to say, that which is essential to reproduction does not describe the totality of the characteristics associated with gender. Physiologically, every human being at the moment prior to conception is destined to become female unless the participating sperm cell contains the additional Y chromosome necessary to produce a male being. This fact of human reproduction was absolutely unknown to all contributors to Holy Writ and for most of its faithful readers throughout the years subsequent to its compilation. The involvement of the Y chromosome in the reproductive process introduces a second spectrum of potentialities (masculinity) which incompletely replaces the initial spectrum which otherwise would establish a female. It is irrefutable that the respective significances of the normative particularities of masculinity and femininity, which are presented in physical form (PPCs), nevertheless are culturally defined as SPCs. It is important to recognize that there is no single and absolutely complete representation of maleness or femaleness in any human being. (This would be true even for Jesus of Nazareth!) What is equally significant is the fact that cross-cultural comparisons of the different societal spectra of maleness overlap the spectra of femaleness. In other words, within both the physiology and the physiognomy of humanity, there are characteristics which could be acknowledged as being either male or female, if not bisexual. Such characteristics (SPC), if they are, indeed, socially visible, are distinguishable only in their manifestations within individual males and individual females in socially and culturally specific situations. They are not totally and absolutely distinct and categorically specific in and of themselves. Consider the following examples: (1) the parenting dispositions of fathers and mothers toward their offspring or toward disabled persons or person with special needs; (2) that the Greek term translated in modern times as homosexual, is more accurately rendered as effeminate, a term that originated from the concept known as softness; and (3) within the cultures of various native American tribes there is the normative characterization that is identified as squaw-man.

19 Therefore, in terms of relevance for human behavior, what is undeniable is the fact that the individuals particular disposition toward personal gender orientationa psychological and sociological phenomenondoes not accord absolutely with exacting gender identitya physiological phenomenon. What a person understands to be his or her own persona is in consequence of a complicated and complex configuration consisting of hormonal balances (or imbalances), genetically impacted physiological characteristics and appearances, alternative psychological nuances, differential behavioral tendencies, and the tacit, if not explicit, learned and acquired judgments of self and of others significant within that persons life as consequences of interpersonal relationships. The nursery of the social self is a complex process that existentially circumscribes an array of potential traits and characteristics that developmentally coalesce into the individuals physiological and psychological persona. This configuration that ultimately defines the person is experienced as challenging, and yet as frightening; as comforting, and yet as bazaar; as open-ended, and yet as restricting; as permissive, and yet as protective; as interactive, and yet as constraining; as creative, and yet as stifling; as inspiring, and yet as depressing; as interpersonal, and yet as solitary stimuli. These physiological, psychological, and sociocultural parameters both direct and/or invite the individual to develop into, and thus emerge as, a uniquely distinctive human being, every example of which is in accord with standards that operate throughout the Universe. Every person, no matter how grotesque, no matter how dysfunctional, no matter how seemingly abhorrent as an abomination, nevertheless each possesses the integrity essential for being categorized as a Creation of the Natural Order. How self-deprecating it is for anyone to marginalize or to exploit the virtue of, if not to ostracize, a fellow human being! In our country, constitutional law serves, initially and primarily, as a protector of the integrity of the individual. The imposition of law upon the behavior of individuals is quite a different issue. I can state my position no more plainly than in this manner. Homosexuality is obviously an inherent aspect of the created order no less than is heterosexuality, although the latter is obviously the dominanthence, the normativeconfiguration. The homosexualalong with the bisexual and the transsexualis, first and foremost, in terms of ones PPCs, a human being even as is the heterosexual person. Although it has been verified that somewhere between 3% to 7% (some authorities give 9% to 12% as a possible upper limit) of any given human population evidences SPCs associated with homosexuality, that proportionality is, nonetheless, equally representative of the 100% totality of humanity. Because of this fact, that particular segment of any population group should not be subjected to any form of discrimination based upon gender

20 orientation and gender consciousness. Unfortunately, throughout human history, civilizations have wrestled with problematic issues based upon overtly evident or subjectively implied distinctions among their populations. Fortunately, the injustices fomented by such disparagements in many instances have been negated by rationally cultural adjustments; that is, by legal procedures. The history of slavery within Western European countries offers a prime example. Anthropological studies demonstrate homosexuality to be a phenomenon which is quite common, albeit in varying degrees, throughout the spectrum of all known human societies. The normative dispositions towards homosexuality, however, are quite variable. They range from [1] a socially approved and structured acceptance in that society, reaching over to [2] a benign toleration of such relationships and the concomitant behaviors, and finally to [3] a violent opposition to what is deemed to be abnormal and anti-social, if not immoral, relationships and behaviors. Spanning these extremes, one discovers a variety of institutionalize adjustments to that which is recognized as contravening the norm, but nevertheless something that can be accommodated within society. In this regard, I follow St. Paul (II Corth. 5:16a & 17), From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view;Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation, the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. I recognize that Christian orthodoxy does not allow such an interpretation. I would insist, however, that there are many other sayings of the Apostle Paul that can be interrupted in ways not generally countenanced by orthodox Christianity. What I am insisting upon hereinfrom a spiritual, if not a religious, point-of-viewis that the ultimate integrity of the individual human being transcends cultural and social designations. Unfortunately, life in the here and the now rarely allows for so noble a disposition to be actually implemented towards one another. [6] HOMOSEXUALITY: A NATURAL FEATURE OF GODS DOMAIN. Given the foregoing, I would offer the judgment that homosexuality is part of Nature. As a part of the Created Order, any and all persons are creatures embraced by the mercy, the righteousness, the justice, and the love of a gracious God. On whatever grounds the behavior of any such creature is socially appalling, it is a totally human disposition to disavow such an individual or to deny to such a person a place within our own circle of interpersonal relationships. It is spiritually and morally reprehensible that there are so many attempts to validate such marginalizing dispositions as being in accord with the teachings and admonitions

21 of Jesus of Nazareth. We are not free to qualify or to disavow the rights of such persons to be called and treated as fully endowed human beings. As Christiansor as persons of any spiritually sensitive religious persuasionwe are not free to qualify or to disavow the rights of such persons, refusing to call them Children of God. Even worse, how dare we deny them the opportunity to be called and treated as Children of God! We are not free to qualify or to disavow the rights of such persons as fully vested citizens of our society. Again, central to the issue of justice is the factor of victimization and it is that issue that ultimately should be our concern. We are obligated to condemn those whose behaviors contribute to, if not actually promote, victimization in any sense, context, or opportunity. Most notably, we need to protect the victims of pedophilia, incest, and rape and so ensure justice for the perpetrators of such behaviors whether these actions are implemented as heterosexual or as homosexual behaviors. But where do we draw the line between those within the Christian community whose lives otherwise exemplify compassionate piety and those within the Christian community whose heinous behaviors are so despicable that they need to be rejected by the civil society as well as being judged to be evil by ecclesiastical doctrine? Would doing so thus enable us to experience the Kingdom of God within our midst? Would we then have the opportunity to be confident that ours is a society that is perpetually health-preserving and provides a sustained bounty of resources? Would we then be confident with a government that is committed to justice and social welfare? Would we then be confident with an educational system which safely provides for the extended nurture of the younger generation? Would we then be confident with an economy that provides honorable, respectable, and gainful employment together with the production of needed and useful commodities? Would we then be confident with a financial system that protects the integrity of personal and corporate wealth? The answer to each of these questions should be selfevident. In other words, the plea here is for a commitment to resolute justice and a reexamination of our theological positions regarding that which is primary in our Christian doctrine; namely, its all about relationshipswith God and one anotherand the manner in which they are manifest within our daily lives. It is my contention that the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth proclaims the virtue of loving, caring, and compassionate relationships within the here and the now as the essential formula for implementing the gift of The Spirit which, apparently, is an unrecognized endowment immanent within each and every living thing. Obviously, the span of the diversity with which the presence of The Spirit is expressed is infinitely vast for it comprehends both a celebration of the virtue which The Spirit fosters as well

22 as enabling an absolute rejection of The Spirit which leads to the most despicable of failed relationships and destructive behaviors. For me, the biblical basis for the anti-gay movement within our country, particularly as it has been employed by many Christians, is one of the greater of misconceptions that confuses and distorts their social and political agendas. Ours is a democratic republic. Its essential genius is institutionally stipulated in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In the simplest of terms, ours is a system of governance which guarantees the mutual accommodation of the greatest diversity of social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and religious groups by means of equal protection under the law for We, the People of the United States. Each individual and each group of individuals is free to pursue its respective purposes, goals, and agendas so long as such activities present no forced incursions into the same arenas of any other group. It is in this manner that we become united in our diversity and so reinforce the integrity of the United States as a democratic republic. Hence, it is imperative that the laws enacted adhere to the norm of universal and equal application. Unfortunately, there have been, there are, and probably always will be exceptions resulting from endeavors to effect equity and justice in societal relationships. Thus, the essential genius of the United States of America is that it functions in such a way as to permit the maximum opportunity for the realization of the fullest potential of everythingnot only people that has been incorporated into the world in which we live. Indeed, the very term democracy requires a perspective for societal organization and governance that acknowledges each and every citizen with equity and justice regardless of the uniqueness of individual distinctions which are recognized as prevalent and are accepted as lawful within our society. [7] THE BONDING OF PERSONS IN MUTUAL RELATIONSHIPS. One of the more contentious of the several facets of the issue of homosexuality is the religious dimension within the political parameters of the institution of marriage. Several states within the United States have already addressed the issue by way of enabling legislation. Interestingly, several countries around the globe have done the sameeven some countries that are dominantly Roman Catholic. A somewhat popular position within our country is that marriage is, and should be constitutionally defined as, the union of one man with one woman. There are several problems associated with this position that seemingly are neglected, if not totally ignored, by many religious people.

23 Based upon global studies of societies, cultural anthropology identifies several patterns of marriage, each of which provides the basis for the family systems that are normative in the respective societies. In addition to that which is primarily the dominant pattern in our society today, namely, monogamy/monogyny, surveys around the world have also quantified the prevalence of bigamy, polygamy, polyandry and polygyny, levirate marriage, interracial marriage, common law marriage, gay marriage, and inter-ethnic marriage. Kindly note: monogamy was not the standard marriage pattern in the O.T. for those righteous Israelites able to afford a polygamous marriage. Each of these types of marriage patterns functions in conjunction with four dimensions of the structural aspects of family organization so as to reinforce a cultural consistency within each society and, in consequence, devise the evident diversity of patterns of marriage and family systems. These dimensions are: [1] The normative system of assigning familial authority and legal dependency that assigns familial responsibility for the nurture, the socialization, and the initializing of the identity of the younger generation: patriarchal, matriarchal, or parentalsociological, not biologicalconsensus.5 [2] The normative system of naming that delineates the relationships that bind the members into one family rather than another: patronymic, matronymic, or parentalsociological, not biologicalconsensus. [3] The normative system of assigning the responsibility for the location of the familys residence: patrilocal, matrilocal, or parentalsociological, not biologicalconsensus. [4] The normative system of assigning and distributing accumulated wealth (property) across the generations (inheritance): patrilineal, or matrilineal, or parentalsociological, not biologicalconsensus. With the vast array of combinations and permutations possible regarding the structuring of marriage and family systems, it is quite evident that throughout the worldalthough there is the greater probability that a single standard for marriage and family might be the legal normin reality, there are in existence, many variations that challenge the integrity of the legal norm. It would be unconscionable to insist constitutionally that the more typical pattern for marriage and family system be a legal requirement for everyone desiring to enter into marriage and family living. There is, however, another complicating dimension. Although we have just examined the basic elements which are involved in structuring a family, not all family systems, even within a common societal context, necessarily conform to the normative pattern. So, for example, even within the United States, a singular conceptualization of marriage and family does not exist. Furthermore, in consequence of the evolution of our culture, the best that a sociologist can do is
5

Although it is essentially a specious category with minimal sociological parameters, a few observers of the American scene have identified a family pattern that they have labeled as filialarchy.

24 to specify the probability of the prevalence of any one of the following family systems. Again, because of the rate of cultural change, this listing should be regarded as tentative. Evident within our society today, the modern family might be identified as: (1) a nuclear family, (2) an extended family, (3) a broken family, (4) a corporate family, (5) a dysfunctional family, (6) a foster family, (7) a common law family, (8) an arrested family, (9) a blended family, (10) a polygamous family, (11) a single-parent family, (12) a communal family, (13) an open-marriage family, (14) a gay family, and (15) a lesbian family. It is obvious that since there is such a variety of family structuresmost of which are sociologically recognized, but do not possess a legal nomenclatureit would be foolhardy to assume that the use of the term family with no qualifying modifiers is universally understood. Similarly, inasmuch as a legally contracted marriage is the initial arrangement that normatively facilitates the family, we cannot presume that marriage is a singularly unique concept as to form and meaning. In many instances the legal status of marriage is simply added to an already established family unit to provide it with social acceptance and it legal prerogatives. The number of American households wherein reside an unmarried couple, heterosexual or homosexualwith or without childrenis rapidly increasing. Obviously, scriptural references and any implied modality as to marriage and family can be reasonably understood only as culturally specific and historically relevant constructs. If the only significant parameter of marriage and family living were procreation, then those wishing to prohibit gay marriage by constitutional means might possess a credible argument. ADDENDUM Obviously, the perspective on homosexuality just presented, in addition to the religious dimension, invokes social and political ramifications. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those of us living in various relationships as citizens of the United States of Americaand even more so, those making law, those making and administrating policy, and those adjudicating disputes and litigationto so act that we implement those dispositions and behaviors that acknowledge and accommodatingly accept the diversity that exists throughout our entire population. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon those who are known as Followers of the Way adopt a totally compassionate disposition toward the whole of Creation. This requires an acknowledgmentbut not necessarily an understandingof its infinite extensity and diversity by resolving that their lives be dynamically dedicated as witnesses to the grace of God by entering into such relationships with others that all parties are able to experience the mercy, truth, and justice

25 which characterized the teaching and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. In secular terms, marriageas understood within the context of modern cultureis essentially a relationship that, ideally, is based upon mutual love. History, quite obviously, is replete with circumstances wherein marriage is utilized as a political, an economic, or a social device in order to achieve specific gain in that arena of life. It is more than obvious that such conditions exist independently of the gender identity and the gender consciousness of the persons involved.