A reader writes:
I am constantly amazed that religious conservatives fail to read carefully the text upon which they allegedly base their dogma. Ross argues that “the Biblical narrative strongly suggests that God intended sex to be” unitive in the “male-female, difference reunited sense . . .” It is not clear to what narrative Ross is referring, but if he is looking for support in Genesis 2, the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, he needs to review the narrative.
As the story goes, after God created the first man, God perceives that it is not good for the human to be alone and thus, decides to “make a suitable partner for him.” Accordingly, God creates the different animals and birds from the dirt and brings them to the human to see what he would call them. Ultimately, none proved to be a suitable partner for the human. So, God causes Adam to fall asleep and removes one of is ribs out of which God forms a woman. When God presents the woman, Adam proclaims: “This one at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” It is the sameness of the two humans, that is highlighted in Adam’s response. The woman is like him, as they are made of the same stuff. The suitable partner for the human is the creature made of the same bone and flesh as he, rather than the animals and birds that were created out of the dirt.
The unitive purpose of the narrative appears to be that it is not good for humans to be alone, that they need a suitable partner and that the suitable partner is one like them, of the same flesh and bone. Yes, the first couple are also sexually of different genders, but it is the sameness that is highlighted not their difference. Clearly, as a first couple, they are the beginning human relationships, not the final statement of the expectable diversity.
The Dish 