Social Psychological Aspects of the Judeo-Christian Stance Toward Homosexuality Page: 3 of 36
This article is part of the collection entitled: LGBT Collections and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Special Collections.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
P. CAMERON AND K. ROSS
";!it\ that the Judeo-Christian stance might
:,nd empirical buttressing has been dismissed
,imost out of hand. Yet, whatever one might
thinkk of its mystical components and beliefs,
:he Judeo-Christian ethic has been associated
Wlth a generally viable set of cultures. As
such, from a functionalist standpoint, the
possibility looms that its operating assump-
n:ons comprise a valid whole. Therefore an
empirical test of the Judeo-Christian regard
of homosexuality would not be out of place.
This article is a report of an exploratory test.
The Non-Mystical Components of the
Judeo-Christian Ethic
Any religion might be separated for con-
venience into two components: the mystical,
and the ethic for day-to-day social function-
ing. Religions stemming from a common
basis might heatedly differ on the mystical
components of their faith while largely agree-
ing on the non-mystical elements. For in-
stance, orthodox Jews rather sharply dis-
agree with orthodox Christians on the nature
of God (e.g., the "Trinity"), and both in turn
disagree with the Mormon conception of God.
'et aside from the mystical components,
which appear beyond empirical testing, they
find considerable agreement on the day-to-
day. non-mystical material. A considerable
degree of interfaith cooperation occurs by
downplaying the mystical differences and ac-
centuating these ethical similarities. And what
are these similarities? Obviously this is a topic
which has occupied numerous theologians and
thinkers for many centuries, and it would be
presumptuous to claim "This is it, period."
However, the senior author has discussed it at
greater length elsewhere (Cameron, 1978b; in
press) and feels the following captures the es-
sence of what it is about. The non-mystical
components are often what is left when
someone "loses their faith," or is often what is
referred to when it is allowed that "religion
nas some good points to it."
First, it must be borne in mind that theJudeo-Christian ethic is oriented toward the
general, not individual welfare. If the interests
of the collectivity clash with those of the indi-
vidual, the interests of the collectivity take
precedence. Generally, individual sacrifice in
service of the interests of the collectivity is the
norm. Whenever there is a choice between
individual betterment and collective better-
ment, the collective choice is the "correct"
one. Similarly, when either individual harm or
collective harm is at issue, the individual is to
accept the pain.
The Good is represented in the ethic by
those kinds of things/activities/relation-
ships/attitudes which tend to promote social
cohesion and generalized human betterment
(see Figure 1). Thus family ties, friendship
bonds, or acts of giving or dispersal of goods
are "good things" because they promote
bondings and reciprocities. Marriage is a
good thing because it joins two individuals,
who might otherwise be separate, into the
social matrix. Further, it provides a model of
reciprocal caring and sharing. Childbearing is
likewise a good thing, because it concentrates
parental attentions upon other humans (their
progeny), and motivates the parents to make
the world a more pleasant place for their
children. Since a "more pleasant place" is
more apt to be created by seeking generalized
betterment, generally the motivations of
parents are toward the good, and their actions
in service of their children are apt to benefit
most of those in society. Further, the habits of
cooperation and accommodation that parents
are apt to acquire in pursuit of their goals, as
well as their attempt to model the good for
their children, are likely to be beneficial for
human society as a whole. One kind of "sin,"
then, is the retreat from good. Divorce is
generally a sin because it disunites or sepa-
rates, models such, and, further, tends to lead
to both personal and social confusion and
alienation.
The other side of the ethic concerns lethal-
ity. The ultimate evil is the premature killing
of a human being or beings (i.e., where a
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Cameron, Paul & Ross, Kenneth P. Social Psychological Aspects of the Judeo-Christian Stance Toward Homosexuality, article, March 1981; La Mirada, California. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc276194/m1/3/: accessed June 11, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.