Flemming Holm's Blog

In the 1970s both the American and the Canadian Psychiatric Associations struck homosexuality from their lists of disorders to be cured.

In 1979 a study of the scholarly literature on the subject of sexual orientation was carried out by a professor at Carleton University at the request of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The writer of the study summarized the results reached by more than 25 scholars who lived and wrote between 1900 and 1975, and referred to a number of others.

The books and articles studied overwhelmingly agree, and the author’s summary concludes, that each person’s sexual orientation is fixed before adolescence is reached. “Sexual orientation is as much an integral part of each individual as is race or gender. It can’t be changed. Neither homosexual experimentation, nor indeed heterosexual experiences by homosexuals detracts from this immutability.”

(As a friend of mine remarked to me, “You may teach a left-handed person to write with his right hand, but he is still a left-handed person.”)

The Canadian Human Rights Commission accepted the professor’s findings, and on its recommendation Parliament added “sexual orientation” to the Canadian Human Rights Act as one of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited, along with race, ethnic and national origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction of an offence for which a pardon has been granted. Thus the change in the Act was made only after diligent study of the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists in many countries.

The Human Rights Act does not of course excuse or justify pedophilia or rape or any kind of sexual violence or exploitation; such actions are violations of the law (and of the sanctity of the individual) whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

It is sometimes claimed that gay individuals have been “cured” of their homosexuality. But scholars are agreed that some persons are bisexual, and can “swing” either way; it is these people who are said to have “changed” or been “cured” – they are bisexuals, not homosexuals.

Some people may feel disgust or aversion at the thought of gay sex. If so, it is their own problem. Such a feeling is not a sufficient ground for adverse legislation, or for the denial of equality to anyone.

I have seen no indication that gay marriage can threaten a traditional marriage, unless of course one of the partners has entered the marriage taking for granted that he/she was heterosexual, and later discovers that he/she is gay. In that case the marriage is in trouble anyway.

A good marriage is one of God’s most valuable gifts. It provides the individual with much needed stability, confidence, joy and moral strength. It encourages the development of a deeper love than would otherwise be possible. It promotes abundant living, for the children as well as for the adult partners.

That being so, it is unfair that gays and lesbians should be denied the full benefits of marriage just because they are constitutionally unable to enter into a satisfying sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. To that minority, homosexual partnership is just as meaningful as heterosexual partnership is to the rest of us. I have known a number of couples who were in loving, long-lasting and joyful homosexual relationships. Unfortunately a homophobic society places severe strain on them by its critical attitude.

Principles of fairness and equality demand that if heterosexual relationships can be legitimized by marriage vows and through recognition by church and government, legitimization of homosexual relationships should also be possible.

Some church bodies and some individuals oppose homosexuality and gay marriage on Biblical grounds, and quote verses in Leviticus 17 to 26 on the subject. But if we are to take Leviticus seriously today, we will stone adulterers, burn witches, put to death children who do not treat their parents with respect, avoid eating pork, refuse to wear cloth that combines yarn taken from more than one source, and carry out a number of other practices which none of us would consider appropriate or even Christian in today’s society. Why insist on condemning this one type of action while ignoring all those others? Can it be that we are not meant to apply Leviticus in “the Christian era”?

A careful reading of Genesis 19 shows that the sin of Sodom involved gang rape, which is surely a sin no matter whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. It was not a consensual sex act. And it was a serious breach of hospitality. Hospitality was much valued in Old Testament times, on the edge of the desert.

St. Paul also has something to say on the subject (very little actually – see Romans 1:27 and First Corinthians 6:9). But some Gentile sects in Paul’s day used male and female prostitution in their worship, and the Jewish Christians were concerned that the new church should not be polluted by such practices. At any rate there was no recognition in those days that homosexuality was a characteristic or orientation – no realization of such differences in people. It was seen as an act or practice only.

As far as we know, Jesus had nothing to say about either homosexuality or homosexual acts. But according to the Gospels he was continually breaking down walls, and including those whom others despised or at least left out: the Samaritans, foreigners, Gentiles, women, the poor, lepers, the blind, the chronically ill, those who wouldn’t or couldn’t keep the pharisaic rules (“publicans and sinners”). He incurred the hatred of the self-righteous by trying to remove the burdens and stigmas which they had laid on the disadvantaged. (Why did the congregation cast him out of the synagogue in Luke 4? Was it because he told of God’s mercy to Gentiles?) The New Testament tells us (John 1 and Hebrews 1) that Jesus is the Word of God; surely if we are marinated in his spirit we too will be inclusive and seek to relieve the burdens of those who are suffering through no fault of their own. “God is love”.

Paul nowhere claims that his teaching is equal to that of Jesus; in fact he points to Jesus as his leader, his superior. (See I Corinthians 1 and 3). He also says that we see through a glass, (in a mirror) darkly (I Corinthians 13:12); presumably he includes himself in the word “we”.

I take my cue from Jesus, not from Paul. Or Leviticus.

I understand that the Palestinian people are suffering enormous deprivation partly because the international embargo is crippling their economy.

It is bad enough that Israel is taking over much of the most valuable Palestinian property through the illegal “settlements”, is preventing the Palestinians from taking advantage of employment opportunities by building walls, and is lowering the water level in the Jordan by its industrial enterprises. While all this is going on, the governments of the world have cut off financial support to the Palestinian Authority, so that the Authority has not been able to pay its employees their salaries, garbage has been piling up in the streets of Gaza, and other normal government services are disrupted.

In the meantime the Western nations continue their support of Israel, put the blame for unrest on the Palestinians and call on them to cease their violence.

It is not surprising that some of the Palestinian people give way to anger, that mobs lash out at perceived enemies, that blood flows and bombs explode, and peace becomes elusive in the Near East.

I would urge the Canadian Government to resume its financial support of the Unity Government and to use its diplomatic clout to persuade Israel to treat the Palestinians fairly.

From the time of Joshua – about 1300 B.C. – to about 135 A.D. (some 1400 years later), the Hebrew people were predominant in the land. From Roman times until about a century ago (some 1900 years) the ancestors of the present Palestinians were predominant. On the basis of this view of history, then, each party has a long standing claim to the land – perhaps an equal claim. But some Jews, and some Christians, would hold that the biblical position of “ Chosen People” extends to the present time, entitles Israel to be pre-eminent today and excused from treating the Palestinians fairly. And some would even say that the sooner Armageddon breaks out the sooner Christ will return – so, bring on the Third World War!

In 1917 the British Government, as the occupying power, and under the pressure of the War, issued the Balfour Declaration, stating that the Jewish people had a right to return to the Holy Land and live there. Since there were many Jews living in Western Europe and in America, the Declaration received much approval and support in those parts of the world. And certainly the suffering of the Jews at the hands of “Christian” people through many centuries (culminating in the Holocaust) made the establishment of a Jewish homeland all the more appropriate. But apparently those whose ancestors had occupied the area for many centuries were not consulted.

I am not saying that Zionism is wrong. I am saying that the Palestinians have suffered much because of Zionism, and that they also have rights to the land. And I am saying that if we expect them to respect the rights of the Jews and to keep the peace, then we must also expect Israel to observe the same high principles. And Canada too must be even handed in its approach to the two parties.

Excerpts of a letter to a Canadian politician

There is no question in my mind that we had to divest ourselves of the corrupt Liberal Government. Not that everyone at the top of the Liberal Party was complicit – far from it. But the climate of entitlement was far too prevalent, and we should have left such venality behind generations ago.

In some ways however we have merely gone sideways, into other kinds of stupidity.  Nearly every day I read of some inanity produced by the authorities, and I want to write someone about it. I have been quiet for months, so let me share my ignorance and indignation with you.

I am bothered by the emphasis on ethanol and the withdrawal of support for solar and wind power. Using ethanol as an energy source is in competition with food production, and therefore suspect in my view. And I understand fossil fuels will be necessary to convert it into energy. But I am not a scientist, so what do I know! However, it will be more expensive in the long run, as it will require government subsidies and will eat up agricultural resources. Meanwhile the sun is shining and producing free energy, and to use its heat in solar panels will surely reduce global warming; and the wind is blowing so it should be able to supply some 20% (so I have heard) of our energy needs. Sun and wind are free; we merely have to pay for delivery.

The maintenance of the environment is of paramount importance. I have a six year old grandson who is very aware that many species of animals and plants have become extinct over the past millions of years. The other day he voiced his concern that the human race might also become extinct eventually. It is a distinct possibility – indeed, a probability. Some climatic changes are inevitable, but let us not hasten the process! Someone has said that we do not own the earth; we hold it in trust for our grandchildren. If not Kyoto, then what? The government seems to be following that of the US in protecting big industry to the detriment of the environment and of the population of the world. We are going the way of the Scandinavians in Greenland in the late Middle Ages and of the native people of Easter Island in more recent times. Conservation is desperately important to the survival of our species. Erosion and deforestation, as you must well know, will cause lasting and cumulative shortages in the productive power of the earth, and if world population continues to grow the human race will be in deep trouble. It is bad enough now!

I have heard recently that over the past several years the top 20% of the Canadian population (incomewise) has enjoyed a 15% increase in real income, while the bottom 40% have seen their real income decrease. In other words, the poverty gap is growing. And I understand that the latest federal government budget includes a reduction in taxes for the wealthy and an increase for the poorest. The poorest nations also become poorer and the richest become richer. This is unconscionable! It is sin! But of course it is very difficult for Canada to do anything about it when the US Government refuses to acknowledge the injustice. I hate to inflict the words of a Liberal politician on you, but Trudeau’s remarks about being in bed with an elephant come to mind. (Foodbanks are not the answer – they are a sign of moral, financial and governmental bankruptcy.)

Isaiah railed against the concentration of wealth in his day (See Isaiah 5:8-13). And Jesus was put to death because he took the side of the poor against the powerful. The Babylonians conquered the little kingdom of Judah in 586 B.C., and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 and 135 A.D. Direct results, in both cases, of poverty gaps, concentration of wealth and governmental ineptitude. Some things have changed very little over the centuries.

Is there any good reason why one family should have more than five times the income of any other family? Such disparity can only weaken the fabric of the nation. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work – too little trickles down, it trickles up instead!! Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us, and that to him who has will more be given – but he didn’t say it was right that it be so. An important purpose of government is the protection of the poor against the rich and powerful, and this includes economic exploitation. Under the Harper regime Canada seems to be following the United States and weakening the social safety net. Please prove me wrong!

Canada is desperately slow in settling Indian land claims. If we had moved more quickly, the debacle at Caledonia need not have happened. The water problems on a reserve in Northern Ontario (the name of the place escapes me) could also have been averted if action had been taken in timely fashion. The Kelowna agreement has been abrogated, nothing worthwhile has taken its place, and Native leaders are disgruntled. Again we neglect the disadvantaged, so that the rich and powerful may prosper.

In international affairs (as in internal matters) we cannot protect freedom by denying freedom. We cannot protect rights by denying rights. International law must be maintained; we fought for it too hard and too long to let it go now. Guantanamo Bay is a blot on the Western world. So is Abu Ghraib. So is Denmark’s Jyllands Posten with its caricatures of Mohammed. Let us take the high road!!

The Israeli government has a policy of acting unilaterally in dealing with the Palestinians. And it is being supported in this by the American government. The Zionists want to strengthen Israel to the detriment of other people who have lived in the same area for thousands of years. They are supported by millions of fundamentalist Christians who misinterpret the Bible to promote the belief that there has to be a major war between the Judaeo-Christian world and all others before Christ returns and the Kingdom of God begins. And the Government of the United States, in its effort to maintain power and avoid the charge of anti-semitism, bows to this coalition.

(“For not with swords loud-clashing, nor roll of stirring drums,
but deeds of love and mercy, the heavenly kingdom comes.”)

Still – we live in the best country in the world. We have much to be thankful for. And we have many to be thankful to. If you have any influence in such matters, please support the movement to award Stephen Lewis a Nobel Prize!

Yours for an even better country in an even better world!