I’ve been thinking about homosexuality, and have come to the conclusion that Christians in general have missed the boat. We should be the ones pushing for gay rights, not fighting against them. By demonizing homosexuality I think we’re missing a great opportunity to do a great good in our world, and instead are letting ourselves become tools for evil. I want to outline some of my thoughts on the matter.
Biblical passages apparently condemning homosexuality
In reality, it is hard to make a watertight biblical argument against homosexuality. To my knowledge, there are three main biblical passages that appear to be against homosexuality. The first is in old testament law (e.g. Leviticus 18:22), but is alongside a lot of other bizarre commandments, which no christian I know observes (e.g. don’t wear cloths with two fibres?), so there is no reason to see the law’s condemnation of homosexuality as anything more than an obscure old law.
The next is the example Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), cities that were destroyed by God for their unrighteousness. The question is, what were they doing that caused them to be considered unrighteousness? The bible gives us an example; angels visit the town, and the men of the town want to homosexually rape them. Some take this (as does christian tradition) to be an indication that homosexuality is wrong, but this misses the far more obvious sin; rape. Any town that’s default response to visitors is attempted rape is unrighteous, heterosexual or homosexual. So this account doesn’t provide evidence that homosexuality is wrong.
Lastly, there are a few new testament passage that mention homosexuality amongst a list of other negative attributes. The most notable one is Romans 1, where Paul talks about people turning away from God, and engaging in homosexuality, among other things. This may appear as a scathing condemnation of homosexuality, but we should look closely at what Paul is actually saying. For a start, Romans is a horribly difficult book to understand, so we should be careful in coming to firm conclusions from a single passage. Among various interpretations, it is possible that Paul is quoting another passage, and doesn’t actually agree with what the passage is saying, which would explain why Paul suddenly flips the blame onto the readers in Romans 2: “Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment.”. Additionally, it is entirely feasible that Paul (or the passage Paul is quoting) is not commenting homosexuality per sei, but pagan cults that involves sexual rituals.
The bigger picture
So there is some apparent biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But it’s in isolated passages, which can be explained as culturally irrelevant today. What we should look to is the broader picture of the bible, and ignore the pieces that seem to be artifacts of the culture of biblical authors (e.g. slavery, a decidedly non-christian practice, is all but endorsed in Colossians 3). What is the broader picture, and what does it have to say about homosexuality?
Jesus did not come to the ‘in’ crowd. He came to the outcasts of society. He helped the lepers, he associated with ’sinners’, with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with the common people, all the people who the religious leaders looked down upon. He came bringing reversal to exploitation, he hated the idea that religion was being used to make money of people, that people were being oppressed by the economic and religious systems, and he fought against it. It took a while, but eventually his disciples caught on to the idea that the kingdom of God was not just for Jews, it was for Gentiles too. It wasn’t just for free men, but for slaves, for women, for everyone. Before God, all men and women are equal. All men and women. The end of James 1, James makes it pretty clear that if we resort to following the old ways of respecting one group over another group, we are really going against the message of Jesus.
I put it to you that Homosexuals are the outcasts of modern society. Admittedly their lot in society has been getting better, but unfortunately this has been because of efforts outside of the church, and in fact their lot has been impeded by the church. It should be the other way round - the church should be advocating for homosexual rights.
An appeal for Christians to accept, and advocate for homosexuals
It’s hard to be different. Our society is heavily heterosexual, to be homosexual is a deviation from the norm. Someone who comes to terms with being a homosexual can go through a very difficult journey. They have to come to terms with being different from what seems like everyone else, they have to deal with an inner conflict as they try and work out who they are, and what they believe is right and wrong, they have to come to put up with all the derogatory comments towards homosexuals, the reactions of others when they come out, which can range from surprise to moral condemnation to disgust. Some people can be accepting, but others are not - and the most screwed up thing is that Christians are often the most unaccepting people.
Christians condemnation of homosexuality is an evil, as it goes against what Jesus taught, and also, it causes much pain. Consider the familiar example of someone growing up inside Christianity, but coming to the realisation that they have homosexual feelings. There is an inevitable dilemma; either reject the church dogma that homosexuality is wrong, or reject a part of themselves. Both of these choices can be incredibly painful, one often leading to a disconnection from church, family, sometimes all they know, the other often leading to a rejection of self, a horrible, horrible fate. I have seen people destroyed by this dilemma. People shouldn’t have to make this choice.
In the past I believed homosexuality was a sin. Naively I contributed to the christian culture that preached that homosexuality was wrong, that people who ‘had it’ could repent and change. I now recognize that I contributed to oppression; I contributed to the culture that causes a lot of pain for many people, a lot of which I probably wasn’t aware of it. No more.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 5, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Fraser
Agree.
March 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Amoebe
well done! You are talking about a change of heart on your part in the last paragraph. What brought that about?
March 9, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Scott Mackay
Thanks for your comment on my blog, hope you don’t mind me returning the favour :). It’s such an important issue.
Homosexuality is a issue which causes a great amount of pain for many people. It is one on which Christians have generally shown a fair amount of ignorance also, and lack of compassion. It is one we need to think through thoroughly, both from a biblical, but also a pastoral perspective.
I agree that we need to look at the broad picture of the Bible as you suggest. But it doesn’t seem that you’ve done that at all. The biblical evidence you cite on the side of disapproval of homosexual sexual activity is entirely of the proof-text variety. You’ve ignored the creation accounts, which outline God’s design and intention for sexuality, the way the OT law functions to restrain these distortions, and what Jesus taught about sexuality.
Yes, the Leviticus prohibitions against homosexuality are alongside ceremonial guidelines (e.g. food) for ancient Israel. But a Christian reading of the OT law must be consistent with Jesus’ teaching. Jesus specifically declared all foods clean in Mark 7:18-23, abolishing these ceremonial requirements for new-covenant believers. But in the same section in Mark, Jesus mentions sexual immorality (Gk. porneia) among those things which come from the inside of a man and makes them unclean. This term in common Jewish usage referred to the abberant sexual behaviours forbidden in the OT law, e.g. Lev 18.
This is consistent with Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 1:8-10, that homosexual sexual activity is something that the OT law forbids, and still forbids even after Christ has come.
Jesus was pretty clear on sexual ethics in Matthew 19:1-12: marriage is for life, man and woman, as defined by Genesis 1-2, and if you’re not up for that then it’s better to stay single (my paraphrase).
After saying all this however, I fear that because your treatment of the Bible and Jesus’ teaching is so selective and cursory, it would make very little difference whatever they actually said on the matter. I hope that is not the case, and that you will reconsider your position.
Ultimately, we are faced with a question: Is there something that could feel so much part of us, that Jesus still has the authority to call sin. Something that comes from within (Mark 7), even something that at times seems to originate from ‘who we are’ that Jesus could call us to renounce. Surely a faith which bears any resemblance to biblical, historic Christianity would answer yes to that question.
One test is to apply your arguments to some other behaviour. as the following author does:
“The first thing to notice is that the basic argument—that she ‘is’ gay and so should be free to act as a gay person—is not an argument I think she would make in other circumstances. What do I mean? Well, the thing that seems so obvious here—that ‘is’ should lead to ‘ought’—is not, in fact, obvious at all. For example, there is a lot of scientific evidence that biology plays a part in things like personality disorders (e.g. borderline personality), and we also know that there are many diseases which are genetic (e.g. muscular dystrophy). In both cases, if we followed the basic line of her argument, then we would argue that the the person with borderline personality just is, so they should be free to be as manipulative and as antisocial as they like. Or we would argue that the person with muscular dystrophy just is, so stop trying to cure the disease. I am not saying that homosexuality is exactly like either of these other things, but I am pointing out that Fox’s basic argument about her gayness is not an argument that she would accept in other circumstances.”
The assumption that the way things are (nature), can teach us morality is completely inconsistent with Christianity. We don’t work out morality from nature, God is the one who determines what is right and wrong in his creation. And God’s revealed guidelines for sexuality aren’t for our harm but our good. It isn’t restrictive to joyfully accept God’s plan for our sexuality - it is actually true freedom.
Another question which your post raises is this: Can someone disagree with my behaviour, and yet love and accept me as a person? You seem to assume this is impossible in the case of homosexuality.
Yet in the different, yet comparable case of adultery, this is exactly what Jesus did in John 8. He stood by the woman who was being humiliated by the self-righteous religious leaders, yet dissapproved of her behaviour at the same time. Would you call Jesus unaccepting of this woman? And yet he said ‘Go and sin no more’.
Why is it not possible for Christians to show a similar care of homosexual people - to embrace and love them, while recognising that homosexual behaviour is contray to God’s word.
March 10, 2009 at 12:03 am
Nato
Amoebe:
.
Ha ha! Yes, the post was the product of the change of heart. How did it happen? Ah, I just picked whatever I myself could identify with, and I am now imposing it on others
Scott:
Cheers for the comment. Indeed, returning favors is a very important issue! - So why did you write so much about homosexuality?
Anyway, lots of issues, I will try and deal with the main ones you raise. Bear in mind the post is a product of percolating the idea in the back of my mind over the years, so my brief and cursory treatment of the biblical argument over homosexuality is, well, brief and cursory.
You say that nature can only tell us what is, but cannot tell us what ought. I would make the same claim about the presence of male and female couplings in Genesis, and nature. Just because this is, doesn’t mean all ought to follow this default. Just because God created male and female, this doesn’t mean that homosexual couplings are wrong. Yes, Jesus did say that the husband and wife are made for each other, and that they should be joint together, but was point was that couples are made for each other, and that the union ought to be sacred, not that homosexuality is wrong. Jesus was answering a question about a heterosexual divorce, and hence the terms male and female were quite appropriate here.
Coming back to Paul, I’m sure you’re aware of how he can at times use ‘exotic’ language when he gets passionate about things, and says things ought to be taken with a grain of salt, as they are obvious exaggerations. Like in Galatians 5:12 (CEV); “I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!” (I’m sure you can come up with more). It’s comforting to know that Paul would have his rants at times. But the key here is that in the new testament period, calling someone a homosexual was an insult (unfortunately, this hasn’t changed today). So I interpret Paul’s condemnation as more poetic, condemning pagan practices, that happened to involved homosexuality, not condemning homosexuality per sei.
The way I view the situation, primitive cultures were disproving of homosexuality, and unfortunately this has managed to leak into scripture (through the writers biases, and the tendency to use exotic language), and has managed to leak into Christianity (through misreading of such passages, including the is-ought fallacy, and a fallacy of association as seen with Sodom and Gomorrah).
I’m not saying that anything that comes from with in (from genetics, or whatever) is right. Yes, there is much within us that is not right, and the Christian seeks to purify herself from the evil within. But I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is evil. It can be associated with evil (e.g. homosexual rape), but in itself, I do not see it as evil. The difference between your cited examples and homosexuality is that manipulation and antisocial behavior can be demonstrated to be harmful to others, whereas homosexuality is quite different. What is wrong with two people loving each other? If it is male and female, it can be beautiful. But if it is a male and a male, suddenly it’s wrong?
If something is not harming anyone, then what is wrong with it? One answer to this that you bring up is that we ought to determine our morality from God, not from whether something harms us. But you seem to have contradicted yourself. You say that God determines our morality, and that we cannot work out our morality. But in the very next sentence you immediately say that God’s guidelines are for our own good. Which is it? Does God randomly decide what is right and wrong, or does he tell us what is right and wrong on the basis of what is and isn’t good? Since the former implies that good is arbitrary, I would say the later is right, and hence if someone isn’t harmful then God wouldn’t disapprove of it.
And lastly, in why would it not be possible for a Christians to show love and acceptance for to a homosexual, while still disagreeing with their behavior? Theoretically it’s possible. But we enter the realm of feelings, where we need to remember that there are two or more people involved here, thus two worlds of feelings. Because it doesn’t matter how accepting the Christian feels towards the person, the person can still feel rejected, perhaps because they feel that homosexuality is a part of them? I don’t know. It would be great if Christians could be accepting of homosexuals, while disapproving of their behavior, but sadly it often doesn’t work that way.
March 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Scott Mackay
Thanks Nathan.
I don’t accept your point about Genesis and Jesus’ teaching simply being commentary on nature. Genesis expresses God’s purposes for human sexuality, not just a commentary on nature. It teaches us why God created humans as sexual beings, to complement each other, and serve God’s purposes together by being ‘one flesh’ and filling and subduing the earth. Genesis is actually teaching us something about God’s purposes, not just describing what ‘is’.
Likewise, Jesus re-enforces the teaching of the OT on sexual ethics. He says clearly that life-long marriage is the God intended expression of human sexuality, and the only other option is singleness. That’s why the disciples find it such a hard teaching.
Combined with his condemnation of porneia, Jesus position on the possibility of homosexual unions is abundantly clear.
Likewise, Paul’s interpretive framework for sexual ethics is not the prejudices of his culture, but the teaching of the OT - something he states explicitly (1 Tim 1), and implicitly in his use of the terms for homosexuality, derived from Lev 18. This is not careless language. The issue in Romans 1 is that this behaviour goes against God’s intentions in creation for human sexuality, not an unprincipled and careless rant. I don’t understand how we can dismiss Paul’s writing as a careless rant when he is claiming to write as an apostle, with the authority of Christ himself.
On the issue of ethics and what we percieve to be ‘good’ for us - I think you assume too much. Just because God’s commands are good for us, doesn’t mean we will see the whole picture, or be able to see the full reasons for his commands. The nature of the Christian life is to live by faith and not by sight. We don’t have the perogative to decide what is moral based on what we ’see’ to be harmful or not. Doing what seems right in our own eyes is the essence of sin in the Bible, and so the faithful person is one who lives by the Word of God and trusts that his commands are good.
Aside from that I think there are many possible reasons that homosexual behaviour could be harmful to ourselves and others (e.g. this letter)
Ultimately I think this is an issue of repentance. Are we willing to let God be God, or will we stubbornly persist in rejecting his words to us in Christ. I pray that we will do the former.
In love,
Scott
March 10, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Amoebe
Haha, as long as you only impose your acceptance of homosexuality onto other people - there is a difference between “imposing” your acceptance of homosexuality on other people and trying to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality…imagine an evangelical-preacher-style guy /girl going from door to door
March 10, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Fraser
Heh, I’m trying to imagine a Billy Graham-style crusade. “YMCA” instead of “Just As I Am”? Brillant!
Gordon Atkinson gives a good summary (from a liberal/progressive Christian perspective) of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality here.
March 10, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Nato
lol…
“have you heard the good news about homosexuality?”
Nice link Fraser, looks like a clearer treatment of the biblical case for homosexuality than my own.
Scott, I can see where you’re coming from, but I very much disagree with you. The bible is a signal from God, and unfortunately, there is noise (which is unavoidable; 2000 years, different culture, author bias, etc…). I see your arguments against homosexuality as coming from the noise. I’m guessing you do filtering some of the noise - I take it you’re cool with women speaking in church? - I find it interesting that you do not filter out the apparent condemnation of homosexuality. But that is your perogative.
Your appeal for repentance, for relying on faith as opposed to sight all depend on what I believe about God. Yes, I repent of evil, yes, I want to be faithful towards God. But by calling me to repent on this issue, in my eyes, you are effectively calling me to turn to the gods of human tradition! If I were convinced that God condemned homosexuals, I would hastily retract all I have said. But I believe that God calls us to the exact opposite, and so I support homosexual rights.
Similarly, if I told you to repent without convincing you, I would be calling you to turn to some other god. As it is, I guess I’m going to have to accept that we disagree, and as such, I want to wish you all the best in accepting homosexuals, given your position - if you (and those who you influence) can still enable homosexuals to feel loved and empowered, you have my respect.
March 11, 2009 at 8:05 am
Scott Mackay
Well I would just plead that sometimes it is actually the noise from our own culture which prevents us from hearing God’s words.
Thanks,
Scott
March 11, 2009 at 8:11 am
Scott Mackay
Since you raised the issue of women speaking in church in 1 Corinthians 14, this article is a good summary of my position.
After reading Gordon Atkinson’s post, I think his treatment (obviously) is very superficial, especially of Romans 1. That type of exegesis has been a complete failure. I think it’s more intellectually honest to say (as Nathan has) that Paul was biased and simply wrong if you want to take that position.
March 11, 2009 at 9:18 am
Andrew
Scott,
If it could be conclusively demonstrated that homosexuality was significantly harmful, then you would convince me and many others it was wrong. Virtually all people today who are politically liberal hold to a moral standard which determines whether things are right or wrong based on how much harm vs benefit actions and behaviours cause to the individuals involved. As a result, virtually all political liberals in the world have taken pro-homosexuality stances due to the observation that allowing two adults who love each other to commit to a relationship self-evidently causes far more benefit than harm. (i.e. Benefits: Freedom of choice, promotion of love; Harms: None apparent.) If it could be definitively shown that homosexual behaviour was far more harmful than beneficial then the half of the world that has been supporting homosexuality would turn around and reject it. You posted a link that to are article by Gagnon in which he makes many claims about harm caused by homosexuality… many of his claims directly contradict empirical studies I have seen elsewhere. For example, I have read that lesbians have a greater life-expectancy and have longer more-committed relationships on average than heterosexual women. In the article you linked to, Gagnon fails to cite any studies whatsoever in support of his assertions about the harm of homosexuality, while citing many in support of his other points… is that because his assertions have no empirical support?
I would consider myself an expert on Paul’s writings, especially Romans 1-4, and I find the proposed dilemma that one must either enlist Paul against homosexuality or dismiss him as biased and wrong as being quite humorous. There are plenty of serious scholars of Paul who do not believe he says homosexuality is immoral. With regard to Romans 1…. To the novice modern reader, Romans is self-evidently full of ‘rhetorical questions’. These are actually not at all rhetorical questions as we known them today – but rather a full blown dialogue with Paul and another person exchanging arguments in a discussion. Throughout Romans Paul extensively engages in dialogue with other views, and regularly uses a related rhetorical device (called ‘prosopopoeia’ by those of his time). Many works from the period are in dialogue form. Paul’s dialogue opponent in the first part of Romans is a person who calls themselves a Jew and relies on the law and boasts of their relation to God (Rom 2:17). I agree with numerous other scholars that Romans 1:18-32 is a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon. The book Wisdom of Solomon holds a viewpoint identical to the Jew that Paul is dialoguing with. ie. It is Paul’s opponent’s viewpoint. This is confirmed by the beginning of Romans 2 where the speaker switches to Paul (there is a change of voice to use ‘you’ to refer to the person condemning others), and Paul starts criticizing the dialogue opponent for being too condemning of others. The discussion of homosexuality in Romans 1 is thus rendered somewhat irrelevant with the realisation that Paul is not the speaker. Of course, other comments might be also made, such as the fact that the speaker labels the homosexual behaviour as dishonourable rather than immoral. Modern readers have a tendency to make the mistake of equating honour with morality… honour and shame were ancient concepts which had little to do with morality. Given the ancient definition of honour, homosexuality is virtually the greatest possible dishonourable behaviour, hence why the speaker of Romans 1 cites God as ‘letting’ humans do it to dishonour themselves as punishment for their dishonouring God. It is completely unwarranted, however, to draw from the speaker’s statement that it is an immoral behaviour.
March 11, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Scott Mackay
Andrew,
A few brief comments, and then I think I’ll call it a day.
Your description of how most people determine morality, while it may be interesting, is of very little use in a discussion about whether Christians should support homosexual sexual unions. Even if a certain behaviour enabled you to temporarily prosper, and live a long healthy life, that would not change the nature of the Christian life as one lived by faith in the Word of God. Feel free to have a whole framework of sexual ethics based on utilitarianism, just don’t call it Christian.
As for your second point - I don’t consider myself an expert on very much at all. But I know that there are also many serious scholars who think the other serious scholars are soft and are simply capitulating to culture. Sometimes you just have to call peoples bluff.
Even if Romans 1:18-32 is Paul speaking in another voice for rhetorical purposes (which I don’t grant), even those his preceeding argument critiques this other voice, it is critiquing it’s self-righteous attitude rather than it’s moral judgements. 2:2“Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?”
His critique is that in condemning others, the people he is addressing think they avoid God’s judgement against themselves, even though they may be right.
Point 3. Church history (which seems to carry some weight with you on other issues).
Maybe I’ll end by saying, I heard of a man who occasionally comes to a conservative (theologically) church, but is a practisicing homosexual. The pastor asked him why he comes along, even though the church dissaproves of his behaviour. His answer was that this church actually loves him, all the others just tell him what he wants to hear.
Over and out,
Scott
March 11, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Andrew
Scott,
The moral theory of benefit-not-harm, aka selfless love toward all, I certainly do call ‘Christian’. (Though I wouldn’t label it ‘utilitarian’) The NT makes clear that the core moral principle is love for others. As Nato points out, if “God’s guidelines are for our own good” then it follows that all beneficial things must be the will of God. Thus, if anything is beneficial it is the will of God. Nato’s point in the original post seemed to me to be precisely that such a moral view was taught in scripture.
I’m not asking you to agree with my exegesis of Romans. I’m simply pointing out that many people who have seriously studied Paul’s writings have not come to the conclusion that he is anti-homosexuality. I agree some do capitulate to culture and decide how they’ll interpret the text before they read it. Speaking for myself however, I can confidently say I do not do that.
You heard of one gay man, somewhere, who occasionally comes to a conservative church because they love him? I’m sure we’ve all heard that most gay men never go to conservative churches because they feel unloved there. It doesn’t really balance, does it?
May 24, 2010 at 6:15 pm
T.J.
I see that I am commenting over a year after this discussion ended, but I wanted to address something Scott said about the creation narrative and the purpose of the OT sexual regulations.
He stated regarding the Genesis account that it “outline[s] God’s design and intention for sexuality.” I find this statement incredible in light of the fact that the Old Testament Law of Moses bases its sexual ethic on this very passage - and that very law treats women as the property of men and says absolutely not one word proscribing polygamy, but, on the contrary, has specific laws that ensure it. The fact is the early Jews saw absolutley no contradiction between polygamy and the Genesis account. They simply believed a man could be one flesh with many women. After all, the acquisition of more wives was just a way of getting rich since they saw marriage as the accumulation of more property - for that is what women were looked at as. This law is the same law, I should point out, that supposedly was given to Moses by God, the same Moses who was given that very same creation narrative (I am assuming a conservative position on the authorship of the first five books for sake of argument)! Why didn’t God tell Moses that the law as he was writing it was contrary to His intent for men and women as He had already laid out in Genesis 1 and 2? Seems perfectly reasonable, do you not think? Could Moses have forgotten by the time he got to Leviticus and Deuteronomy? I highly doubt it. Or, if you are going to assume verbal-plenary inspiration, how did Moses not KNOW this and incorporate it into the Old Testament law?
He also noted that we should take heed to the “the way the OT law functions to restrain these distortions.” This is laughable. The OT law enshrines patristic hegemony, the use and exchange of women as property, polygamous relationships, levirate marriage, and the condemnation of natural mentraul and seminal discharges! If I wanted to determine sexual ethics, the LAST place I would go would be the OT law. The OT law represents the understanding of God as had by the people of that time, just like our creeds and theologies and ethics reflect our understanding of God. They sought to the best of their knowledge to apply what they believed to be true about God. There is a progression to the revelation of God that we get. Today, we go by the law of Christ and that is the law of love. If I am loving someone then I am fulfilling the only law that matters (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:6). Homosexuals in loving, committed relationships are doing the very same.
I would be highly cautious about basing our ideas about God’s intent for sexuality on the ideas of the same people who believed God told them to go in and commit genocide against people of another religion including young children and babies who could hardly have been seen as guilty of their culture’s sins. Recognize the OT for what it is: pre-Christ people’s understanding of God. And then stick to Christ’s heart as the revelation of God that we should be guiding our lives by.
P.S. - Besides all this, the stated reason for God creating Eve in Genesis is so that Adam wouldn’t be lonely. In other words, the first thought for marriage is companionship - even in their world! Gays and lesbians most certainly have a need for companionship as much as their heterosexual friends and family do.