COLUMN: "On Adam and Steve"

From Tim Farrell's "Speaking Strictly For Myself," Spring '92 I laughed out loud, not because it was that funny -- I've heard the joke a billion times -- but because it was such a blatant illustration of the level of social discourse we enjoy here at the McIvy. Right up there with Yale and Chicago. The banality of Adam-and-Steve aside, the religious issue the clone raised interests me. I decided to study religion because there were few other disciplines which could offer as many challenges to my identity. Since the reconciliation of religion and homosexuality is not easily acheived, and since it is the moral questions surrounding homosexuality that often generate the most friction in society, I decided it would be to my advantage to have some religious knowledge within my command. Revealed religion in particular, such as Christianity, presents a number of philosophical obstacles for the gay student of religion to negotiate. This is especially true with regard to the conservative sects. For example, it can be very difficult to argue about sexual morality with someone who believes that the Bible is a verbatim transcript of the word of God, as fundamentalists do, or that the Bible is Truth, as evangelicals often imagine. On the other hand, natural religion -- which holds that knowledge of God may be acquired without reference to a source of revelation such as the Bible -- permits wider interpretation. I'll examine revealed religion first. To quote a recent declaration by the Vatican, Biblical scripture proscribes that "it is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally." This is one of the central moral affirmations the Bible makes about sexual morality. (By the same reasoning, of course, heterosexuals who have sex before marriage also act immorally.) This Barbie and Ken principle is based on the creation narrative, in which man and woman are created as complimentary to each other, and on a handful of specific prohibitions against homosexual acts. I have found quibbling over scripture to be unpleasant because it usually involves prolonged exposure to the evangelical personality -- an aesthetically displeasing experience at best. However, when I do find myself so engaged, I usually point out that none of the biblical terms that refer to homosexual activity appear anywhere in the Gospels, which are central to the Christian faith. Plus, if marriage is such a big deal, don't forget that Jesus -- the fundamentalist's sinless paragon -- was single. I have no problem with the institution of marriage; I merely disagree with the belief that it's the only way to have sex morally. Married with children looks like a fine way to spend your life. My brother is getting married in May, and my advice to him: have a ball. Breed until you drop. However, as one Philadelphia Catholic priest pointed out, the quality of a sexual relationship is determined not by its "genitality," but by the tone of its love. Of course, not everyone accepts the Bible word for word. Some folks play moral multiple choice, such as straight people who have plenty of premarital sex or get divorced, yet still can't get over their moral qualms about homosexuality. Nonsense. If they don't like it, I'd much rather they say it's gross or disgusting or something -- at least that's consistent logic. I think eating liver is gross and disgusting, but that doesn't make it any more or less moral than eating chicken: killing is involved in both cases. One evangelical Christian crusader I know of, whose opinions I have come to understand and respect for their consistency, uses natural religion to defend her views about sexual morality. In my opinion, her argument is more of a fair fight because it keeps the Bible out of the ring and relies solely on the basis of experience aided by reason. Based on a construct known as the argument from design, it goes like this: "Imagine, for a moment, that one person designed a car. That person would know everything about that car: what sort of fuel to use, how to maintain it, etc. Well, God designed us. He knows best how we should act and interact." Hume demolishes this argument in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by showing that no such persuasive analogy can be drawn between the car and its maker, and the supernatural production of the world by a cause we call God. If we accept the argument from design, Hume points out, then we gratuitously "make ourselves the model of the whole universe." How can we possibly know what God's ideal was if we only have a small fraction of what He created available to us as a basis for our inferences? We can't even begin to have an idea. Of course, that's getting rather academic. We shouldn't forget that, for many folks, religion is an emotional issue having little to do with logic. The way I see it, Adam-and-Eve versus Adam-and-Steve is an emotional, aesthetic response attributable to growing up in a Christian culture. It is not a definite truth based on reason. The clone on the Walk was declaring an aesthetic preference based on his emotional response to homosexuality. While his response may originate from Christianity, if he thinks it proves anything, he's assuming an awful lot. Tim Farrell is a senior American Civilization and Religious Studies major from Boston, Massachusetts. "Speaking Strictly For Myself" appears alternate Thursdays.