Christianity and gay and lesbian people

[Sanford Levinson]

Rick Duncan writes:


>> Examining the way of life that is captive to the immediacies of
>> homoerotic desire--a way of dissolution, deception, despair, and early
>> death--more and more people will find the reasons and the words for a
>> response that was at first intuitive and pre-articulate."
>
Putting to one side the question of "early death" and AIDS, is there any
evidence that "homoerotic desire" is more dissolute or prone to deception
and despair than standard-form frat-type heterosexual desire in late
20th-century America?  I would be astonished if Rick were much happier about
some of the heterosexual encounters during football weekends at Nebraska
than about homosexual encounters.  I don't mean this as simply a cheap-shot
question, because it seems to me there is a profound difference between
defending a generally conservative sexual ethic (which, as Andrew Sullivan
argues, can allow one ultimately to collapse the distinction between
heterosexuals and gays-lesbians by arguing in favor, e.g., of marriage as a
sacrament that should be equally available to all sexual orientations) and
focusing only on gays or lesbians.  If put to a forced choice, would Rick
prefer a culture of wildly promiscuous heterosexuality or one in which
everyone adhered to norms of monogamy, fidelity, etc., including stable gay
or lesbian relationships?  (Even if he argues that, empirically, gay or
lesbian relationships tend to be less stable--surely a controversial
proposition--I assume he concedes that this is only an empirical point and
not a conceptual one.  Surely Rick e would concede that there do in fact
exist gay or lesbian relationships that are far more stable than given
heterosexual relationships, such as those found, say, in Hollywood or with
heterosexual athletes.)

Sandy Levinson