Letters

Garrett's arguments not based on reason

Mr. Garrett ("First Person," Sept. 25) has two major flaws in his thinking that should be of concern to a person in an academic environment.

The first flaw is the conclusion he makes about the origins of homosexuality. There are two theories about the origins of homosexuality, neither of which is scientifically conclusive. One hypothesis is that homosexuality is constructivist, the other says homosexuality is essentialist -- the nurture versus nature debate. The choice Mr. Garrett speaks of is whether to act on a preference or not. There is no evidence that a person can change or ever has changed to whom they are attracted. "Healed" homosexual men may marry and happily father children, but in defiance of the admission that they continue to be attracted to men. The question is whether that is a fair choice to coerce on someone.

The other flaw concerns his understanding of the Bible. The literature in the Bible was written by and for a particular group of people, in a particular culture different from the good old USA, in a different language than English. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about sexual sins, it's about the sin of inhospitality. The lesson we need to ponder from this famous Bible story is how we should treat the strangers in our midst.

I am a Christian and I am gay. I do not know whether I was born gay or whether cultural constructs informed me to be gay. I know though that I did not choose the orientation of my sexual appetite. It has taken a lifetime to embrace who I am, mostly because of the rhetoric of uninformed and perhaps fearful people. I understand where Mr. Garrett is coming from, though; I have been there in my own way. I am convinced that healing this division requires only the heat of compassion, openness, patience and first person encounters to melt the rock of his notions.

I found it ironic that in the same issue of Emory Report, President Chace shared an open letter in which he pondered, "In what ways are we most likely to generate for each person working and studying here the sense that he or she genuinely matters to the University's greater purposes?" Try dignity and equality. I am proud of the fact that I am affiliated with a University that is striving to do just that.

Timothy Shephard
Graduate and Theology Schools

Areas of difference and agreement

As your article makes painfully clear, there are many differences between us, Gerald Garrett -- beginning, of course, with the fact that you pen jeremiads, while I am more prone to the polite demurral. Professionally, you crunch the numbers as an accountant, while I turn phrases as a writer and cling proudly to my innumeracy. You are black; I am white. You are male; I am female. Concerning homosexuality, I would rather quote Jeanette Winterston and Randy Shilts than Paul and Leviticus.

These differences notwithstanding, we come resoundingly together on one matter; and I would be remiss if I did not, in respectful closing, mention this area of agreement: you love women, Gerald Garrett, and so do I, so very passionately do I.

Susan Carini
University Publications

Homosexuality not a choice

I was disappointed to read the article (Sept. 25) in which Gerald Garrett expresses the opinion that Emory's domestic partner benefits endorse "depraved behavior." His basic assumption is that people have a choice regarding sexual orientation. Of the many gay people I have known, I do not believe any of them chose to become gay. It is usually a painful experience for adolescents who begin to realize that they are different from their peers, that they are not at all attracted to the opposite sex. If it were possible to change, many of them would have. Sad to say, a large number try to pretend they're like everyone else, usually with increasingly disastrous consequences the longer they take to acknowledge that they're not. It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that these teens have two to three times the suicide risk of heterosexual ones.

The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual recognizes homosexuality as a normal variant -- as opposed to abnormal, illness or perversion. Like having blue eyes, dark skin or two X chromosomes, sexual orientation -- notice I did not say preference, which is part of his fallacy -- cannot be changed.

The viewpoint Mr. Garrett so eloquently expresses is hurtful and unnecessary, part of a destructive, self-righteous intolerance that helps box many gay adolescents (and adults) into hiding and self-hatred. I don't expect Mr. Garrett to change his heterosexuality, but I think he could work on his prejudices.

Patricia Yeargin
Family and Preventive Medicine