Opinion Page

Tyler calls homosexuality "biologically incorrect (hence, unnatural)". There are two major problems here. First, "unnatural" is not a scientific term; it is a philosophic term. Its correct usage is the "ideal nature" conceived by ancient philosophers, not the modern sense of "biological nature". Second, he falsely assumes a relationship between "biological nature" and morality.

It does not take a lot of imagination to understand why "biological nature" is a poor foundation for morality. Incest, mammalian promiscuity, infanticide, and aggression are all "biologically natural". Historically, morality has been based on "ideal nature", which is culturally determined. This tradition reached its most influential development under St. Thomas Aquinas. Thus, historical systems based on "nature" opposed shaving, growing flowers indoors, regular bathing, and scores of other activities performed daily by the same people who use the term "unnatural" to justify their antipathy toward gays. For homosexuality the "ideal nature" connection is simple. One of our cultural values is the distinction between the private and public spheres of "consenting adults". That homosexuality is biological is irrelevant.

He touches briefly on the biology of homosexuality with his comments about "the gland". I assume he means the sexually dimorphic third interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3), in the medial preoptic region of the hypothalamus, though he might also mean the corpus callosum. The biological argument neither stands nor falls on either study alone. These are only pieces of a growing body of scientific evidence that indicates homosexuality is a complex phenomenon involving both biological and environmental factors with a genetic component; part of the variation of our, and other, species.

It was extremely amusing to read his caution against taking historical events out of context in reference to the Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). His rendition is just that, and has been recognized as such by biblical scholars for centuries.

Based on textual exegesis alone, there are four possible interpretations of the story: Sodom was destroyed because of (1) general wickedness (2) rape of angels (strange flesh), (3) homosexual intercourse with the angels (4) inhospitable treatment of visitors. Biblical scholars have increasingly favored interpretation (4), emphasizing that the sexual overtones to the story are minor, if present, and that the original moral impact of the passage had to do with hospitality.

The parallel story in Joshua 6 shows the paramount importance of hospitality in relation to sexual offenses. The city of Jerico, like Sodom, was completely destroyed by the Lord, and the one person spared was a prostitute because she offered hospitality to the messengers of Joshua. Stories of divine testing of human hospitality by dispatching beggars or wayfarers to demand the sacred right of hospitality ("theoxeny") are commonplace in the Old Testament. Surprise! One immediately precedes the Sodom story (Gen. 18).

Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places in the Old Testament, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality. Other sins, on the other hand, are explicitly mentioned. Ecclesiasticus says that God abhorred the Sodomites for their pride (16:8), and the book of Wisdom blames inhospitality (19:13-14). In Ezekiel the sins of Sodom are not only listed categorically, but contrasted with the sexual sins of Jerusalem as less serious (16:48-49). Jesus himself apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality (Matt. 10:14-15 & Luke 10:10-12). The original meaning of the story of Sodom survived for over a thousand, but was later contaminated by cultural influences and translation errors.

A note about translation is critical here, because it is the means by which cultural influences contaminate scriptural interpretations. Excluding the misleading English translations, the word "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible. Neither the word nor the concept was part of the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic languages. Like many cultural concepts, the idea of homosexuals as a class did not exist. When confronted with cultural concepts that have no parallels, translators borrow from their own cultural landscape

Mr. Young admits to intense emotions about homosexuality that he defends as adding "zeal" to life. But the emotions that he admits to are "anger", "outrage", "revulsion", and "disgust". That is not zeal, its zealotry. He admits that he is "indirectly responsible" for adding to an environment of hostility and violence. He admits his "extreme" words hurt people, yet he has taken the public stage twice now to spin wild and irresponsible speculations that have no basis in fact. He apologized, then reversed himself. Obviously he is shedding crocodile tears.