Advise and Consent and Sexual Orientation

Talk about politically incorrect!

Senator Anderson punches his gay ex-lover in the mouth. The poor fellow drops face-down in the gutter. Now...there's a lot of things that can happen to a guy when he's punched, but this guy goes in the gutter! Face down! The unmistakable symbolism: that's where he belongs!!*

That's how Otto Preminger treated homosexuality in his 1962 movie Advise and Consent. A former Academy Award winning director, Preminger took bows for his film. Today, he'd be crucified for it. When the movie was re-done for DVD a few years ago , the homosexual sub-plot was replaced with a Jewish one. (even though the original plot was based upon a true incident.)

 

Times have changed. It's anyone with an unkind word about homosexuality who belongs in the gutter today. The District Overseer can barely believe his own words as he observes: "nowadays, only homosexuals want to get married." Evidence, he maintains, that the world is "upside down."

It sure seems that way from any historical perspective.  In my lifetime, I've seen homosexuality go from reviled fringe to cutting-edge alternative. There once seemed nothing more unlikely than this verse becoming reality:

Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.       Rom 1:24-27

It's an unflattering view of homosexuality, but I don't include it for that reason, rather, for it's implication that homosexuality would become commonplace. Nobody of my generation would ever have foreseen it. Seemingly, the going against what is "natural" was enough to rule it out. When you work with plumbing or electricity, you link the male end with the female end. Always. That's the way it's done. Nobody thinks it's cutting edge plumbing to solder two male ends together, or female. It doesn't happen. And it's always been that way with human sexuality. Doubtless, that's how we came to apply those terms to electricity and plumbing.

Preminger's portrayal plays mean-spirited today, yet it was right in sync with popular sentiment of that time - indeed,  of any time. Homosexuality used to be perverted. Now, however, it is edgy, and heterosexuality....well, a little unimaginative, if not downright dull. The very words straight (inflexible, efficient, but monotonous) vs gay (happy, live life to the full!) are rife with the implication. Tabloids breathlessly speculate about this or that star. Are they attracted to .....yawn, how boring....the opposite sex, OR are they enamored with.....cross your fingers, oh please, please, please....the SAME sex! Yes!! That's what I'm talkin about!!!

It's unbelievable!! How can this be the rage? How can it be mainstream? Yes, as a small fringe...that has always been, but how can it seriously rival "natural" sex attraction? Can they all really have been born that way?

Are any of them born that way? Freud used to say that sexuality was determined at a very early age based on interaction of the parents. He's shouted down today on that point, but is there reason to shout him down? Or is his theory, which implies abnormality, just not what people want to hear today?

Or are there yet other factors at work?

Otto Preminger pioneered in introducing taboo subjects to film: homosexuality in Advise and Consent, rape in Anatomy of a Murder, drug addiction in The Man With the Golden Arm. You can count upon films making abundant use of these juicy themes today, but in Preminger's time they were unheard of. Yet, from Advise and Consent (1962) on, every film treatment of homosexuality was more favorable than the one before. Today, there's no film stigma whatsoever about gays, as there was then. Quite the opposite. The gay character is cool, intriguing, hip, contrasting well with other dullards on the show.

I don't pretend to know how to weigh these 3 factors - genetics, Freud, media - or if there are yet other ones. The endorsement of the psychiatric profession, for example. Excess hormones, for another, readily found in modern food and water supplies. Not that this would cause homosexuality, I don't imagine. But it may push sexuality to be more more fluid, more susceptible to other influences. Pure guesswork on my part. I don't really know. But I'll tell you one thing. Never would my generation have anticipated that sexual identity would be so pliable as it has proved to be. That the Bible forecasts this, against all then-common wisdom, is a major point in its favor.

 

Comments

[Screech]

I would also dare say that other sexual activites are becomming mainstream. I'm meeting people who feel that multiple parties in a "relationship" are better. That "consensual" cheating is ok.

Truly, the world is deciding to choose its own morality. Satan once told mankind that we would have our eyes open, knowing good from bad. Yet he never said anything about us being right on the matter. Our world is in a steady decay.

Did God refrain from destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or the world of Noah's day for such practices? What makes people think that He will refrain in our time? No, it will surely come "as a thief in the night" while men are buying and selling, and marrying and being given away in marriage. We are in a time where what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right. It is only a matter of time.

[tomsheepandgoats]

I've heard it said too that lifelong marriage is demeaning to a person, a "selling out" of their true self, since that level of committment necessarily involves a level of bending ones' personality to that of the other.

[Jason Chamberlain]

It seems to me that the clear message of Scripture is that homosexuality is a sin that must be repented of. But you know what? So is gluttony and I've struggled with that one. My point is that sin is sin and it needs to be dealt with.

We're all born with certain proclivities to sin. Some may be into materialism while someone else doesn't care. Some may be into pornography while others don't care. Some may be into drunkenness, etc. We all have sinful proclivities that we need to deal with.

I think the message we get from the media is that sex is a god. Therefore, these folks cannot enjoy their functional savior because their desires are for the same sex. Never mind how this marginalizes polygamists or those who want to participate in bestiality. And what about pedophiles? Why are we infringing on their "rights?"

The argument gets absurd pretty quickly, doesn't it? The world won't admit that it has turned sex into an idol, but that is how it acts.

[tom sheepandgoats]

Jason: I don't disagree with anything you say. The Scriptures make clear homosexual acts have no place within the Christian congregaton. I'm on the same side as you, etc, etc.

But it is with the caveat that beating homosexuality seems far more difficult than any ot the things you mentioned. That's I why I have enormous respect for those determined to do it, and none whatsoever for characters who hurl flaming invectives at gays. (not that I count you among them) They've never fought the same sort of battle they are insisting others fight.

[TXatheist]

In electrical wiring you can take two wires, twist them together and put a twister wiring cap. In piping you can taper a pipe and it will fit in the other pipe. Beat homosexuality? How do you "beat" cult mentality? Or is that not an illness but homosexuality is?

[Jason Chamberlain]

Tom: I quite agree. My point is just that it is easy for a lot of people to make a big deal out of calling out homosexuals while ignoring the sins in their own lives.

Yes, it's tough to beat. I would maintain that God's grace is stronger than the pull of sin. Gal 5:24 seems to suggest that as well. Yet no one should fire any flaming invectives at homosexuals unless they want to hear the same thing directed at their own sin. When I read through Gal 5:19-21 I am repeatedly convicted by how poorly I measure up.

[Screech]

Good points all.

[TXatheist]

How do you beat homosexuality when there is no scientific basis that it needs to be beat? If you say it's wrong then I say brainwashing with religion is wrong just like Steven Pinker says.

[tom sheepandgoats]

TXa: I guess if you maintain that all there is to be discovered science has already discovered, you have a point. I don't take that view, nor do I think that science has any business positioning itself as arbiter on "moral" questions, nor do I think most scientists themselves would take that extreme view. As to your prior comment, taking the traditional stand regarding homosexuality hardly indicates that one belongs to a "cult."

As for Screech, I published the last four comments at one time. (Been away) Would he agree that the comments immediately before his are among the "good points all?" Maybe, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

[Screech]

I would say that the electrical wiring is not a good analogy. If you wirenut a "hot" and "neutral" wire, you get a tripped breaker and a lot of sparks. If you wire the hot and the ground together, you get another tripped breaker. You have to wire correctly, the way the engineer designed it. If you don't you'll get problems.

I've seen studies showing that in some the brain is "wired" like it is for the opposite gender. In such situations, I would agree that it is genetic. However, we all can choose our actions. If someone believes that homosexuality is wrong, they have a choice (albeit a tough one): act on their desires, or not to act.

The Bible never said that it is easy to follow Scripture. In fact, Jesus even compared being a Christian to torture (carrying your torture stake). Yet for those who choose to live their life by Christ's standards, it can be a happy life now and to come, despite the troubles.

[TXatheist]

Right, science right now has observed homosexual behavior in over 1500 species and since science isn't over I would guess that number will climb. I don't see homosexuality as moral or immoral but a part of nature. The traditional view of cult is just as relevant as the traditional view of homosexuality. .........Screech, so the designer/FSM made 1500 species exhibiting homosexual behavior right? But WHY would someone come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong? Would it be similar to not joining a cult because it's wrong? I don't want anyone to follow scripture but you can extract an occasional good idea like helping the poor but also get bad suggestions like killing homosexuals. md457@hotmail.com

[tom sheepandgoats]

TXa: The sexual orientation comment is on topic, and a contrasting point of view. I'm glad to have it. Maybe some other commenter will respond, or maybe I will.

But if you say "cult" one more time, you're comment will not be published. The post has nothing to do with whether anyone is a cult or not, (if the post was on that topic, that would be different) so it comes across as though you are hurling insults, roughly the equivalent of me calling you a "jerk," which I've not done or thought of doing.

Commenters don't have to agree with me. About half of them don't. But they do have to be reasonably respectful, not so much for me as for anyone reading. I don't want this to be a name-calling forum.

[Screech]

TXathiest: The short answer is that "I don't know." I would say a couple of things, however.

1. Human beings and animals are not the same thing. Human beings are more developed in many ways. Therefore, human beings have more choice in their actions than do animals (ie reason).

2. We do not live in the world that God intended for us. It has been damaged and been in a general state of rebellion for approximately 6,000 years. The Bible does give demonstrations that Satan and his demons have the ability to influence the behavior of animals. Of course, I don't pretend to offer this as an explaination.

I figure that the world has been so changed because of this rebellion that weird things are going to happen.

Yes, this has no rational or scientific merit. I don't expect you to agree with me in any way shape or form.

One other thing: Why should we assume that the animal kingdom is under the same standards as human beings? The Bible was not written for animals to follow, but man. It seems to me a moot point to use the animal kingdom in a moral argument.

[tomsheepandgoats]

And if you've ever suffered an attempted "hump" by one of these tiny poodle-type dogs, going at your pantleg when there's nothing to go after, you learn to take animal behavior with a grain of salt. I don't know how definitive are these homosexual behaviors in the 1500 species, or how meaningful.

[TXatheist]

tom, your use of phrase beat homosexuality is why I used cult. Just as you don't see JW as a cult gays don't see homosexuality as something to beat and it is insulting to gays I know. If you watch tv specials they have programs about people getting out/beating cults and leaving them. I wish you took homosexuality with a grain of salt and not worry about it.

Screech, next time give an example because you are wrong. 1. Dolphins can swim better, cats can see better in the dark, eagles can see from farther away, dogs can smell better, apes are stronger and many animals can reason but humans have the ability to write and that is how we evolved differently and can pass on information allowing our reason to benefit future generations. Humans are animals by the way in classification. 2. You do not know that god created this world and that it's not the way it's supposed to be. Cite the koran, gita or book of mormon and you are merely telling me what a story book says just like the bible. 6000 years, oh boy. :( 3. I'm not talking about morality for you see homosexuality is no more about morality than liking coffee. You either do or don't based on the way you are. The bible was not written for anyone to follow but is merely plagiarized mythology.

[Screech]

Controlled circumstances I'm sure. Are they reacting to extreme situations induced by man (ie species extinction, no mates avail, etc...)?

[tomsheepandgoats]

TXa: Okay, it's a skillful enough answer to keep you on for now.

Having said that, if I go on a gay blog and comment, I mind my manners. If I disagree, I do so without being disagreeable. I don't say things that I know will insult them. (unless mere disagreement does that, in which case I don't go on in the first place.

Also, I published your last comment and Screech's at the same time. Thus he could not read yours before replying, nor vice versa.

The "plagiarized mythology" remark also veers off into a totally different area, and I'll let it pass without comment, and trust Screech will as well. There's any number of posts I've written in the archives where it would fit logically, but this isn't one of them.

I like to stay on topic. Otherwise threads never end, yet also never go anywhere.

[NateDredge]

Aw Otto Preminger, one of my favorites. Advise and Consent is an excellent movie (I’m currently reading Allen Drury’s original book co-incidentally),Peter Bogdanovich once called it the greatest movie ever about American politics. Also interestingly the Brigham Anderson character, (a democratic senator from Utah with the first name of Brigham) is obviously suppose to be LDS. Between this and Angels in America, doesn’t it seem like the closeted Mormon homosexual is overrepresented in popular culture?

[tom sheepandgoats]

Could be, Nate, though we get the same.

I suspect we make better targets than the evangelist born-agains, some of whom are so rabid in their denouncement that they become caricatures of themselves. Jason put it well. Homosexual conduct is missing the mark, but so are many other forms of conduct.

[laceysquarepants]

Hi Tom. I have asked this question even on a talk radio show about same sex marriages. As yet to get an answer.

Question--" why in same-sex marriages, whatever the sex, one acts the female role, the other acts the male role?"

As examples, Elton John is female in his marriage and has said publicly that he is the 'queen' in his relationship. Rosie O'Donnell/Ellen DeGeneres project the male role in their marriages.

My generation,same as yours, never thought of same-sex marriages, civil
unions, or domestic partnerships.

My husband and i have discussed the 'Sodom & Gomorrah' subject for a number of years, agreeing that during the 'last days', the whole world would succumb to that ancient condition. And we know we will be poo-pooed just as the Bible says.

“2 Peter 3: 3 For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires”

Those ones that mock and scorn the Bible are fulfilling that scripture as they, “proceed according to their own desires.”

[tom sheepandgoats]

LSP:

Sorry, I don't know either. And like you, I've always heard that it is so. But I wonder if it is in every case? Or might we sometimes project the male/female roles upon them? Don't know.

When you've asked the question on the radio, does the host agree with your premise, that there are male and female roles?

[laceysquarepants]

Yes,he had observed the same situations & had no explanation.

[Jason Chamberlain]

There are lots of behaviors that various religions condemn. The Golden Rule is certainly against our natural inclinations. But isn't selfishness something that we are to fight?

There is an old joke that asks, "why does a dog lick himself?" Answer -- "because he can." Well, there are a lot of things that as humans we can do, but because of decency and various other reasons we don't. I just can't buy the idea that we are simply a different flavor of animal and the rules are no difference for us than for the horny poodle.

Or, to quote Dan Aykroyd in "Dragnet" -- there are two things that separate us from the animals. One, we use cutlery. Two, we are able to control our sexual urges.

[emanuel]

In all honesty, I think that people have too many ideas about what homosexuality is or isn't, myths like the male and female roles of all gay people, or the idea that all gay guys engage in anal sex are prevalent, but not at all true. The portrayal of gay people in the media is just as about as out of touch with reality as anything else that you encounter in the media, and since when does anyone take portrayals in the media at face value anyway?
I didn't find this article attacking gay people so much as merely a bit of an amused observation. Homosexuality is not any more commonplace than it ever has been, we just have more access to information now, and, contrary to statements in the watchtower magazine, I don't think that it is going to encroach on or threaten "natural" sex roles, because it is not on an agenda. Ultimately how we live and love is a matter of our own personal emotions and natural state of being. The bible is really a code book of cultural beliefs that people subscribe to that has some wisdom about the world and life, but also it has some hateful stuff; Apostle Paul really was just a grouchy old man, I like jesus' teachings better.

[tomsheepandgoats]

We take the view that the writers of the New Testament were in harmony with Christianity's founder, and with each other. Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy unity on such questions of lifestyle and doctrine, following a pattern of the first century congregation.

At any rate, Jesus was a Jew and thus would be expected to agree with the Hebrew writings on sexuality. These were as explicit as those of Paul, if not more so.

For whatever reason, Emanuel, the link back to your URL is not operative. Not my doing, I assure you.